Agentic Backlog MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Release task claim

backlog.release_task

Release an active task claim for an agent or session by supplying task ID, agent ID, and session ID. This clears the claim so the task becomes available again.

Instructions

Releases an active task claim for the given agent/session.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "backlog.release_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`session_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.3Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a state-changing operation but does not explain what happens to the task afterward, whether the operation is reversible, what errors occur if the claim is not active, or whether release is idempotent despite the idempotency_key parameter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits required parameter guidance, expected return value, failure behavior, and prerequisites for releasing a claim.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only hints at agent_id and session_id via 'agent/session'. It does not clarify task_id, source, or idempotency_key, and it does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('releases') and identifies the resource ('active task claim') plus scope ('for the given agent/session'). It is clear enough to distinguish this from 'claim_task' and other siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus claim_task or restore_task, nor does it mention conditions like whether the claim must be active or whether only the owning agent/session can release it. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'releases'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.