humanagent-mcp

complete_bounty

Submit a completed bounty task by providing the bounty ID, optional result details, and a 1-5 star rating with comment. Enables AI agents to confirm human task completion and evaluate outcomes.

Instructions

完成赏金任务并评价

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": {
      "bounty_id": "<bounty_id>"
    },
    "name": "complete_bounty"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rating`	No	评分（1-5星）
`result`	No	任务结果描述
`comment`	No	评价内容
`bounty_id`	Yes	任务 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.11Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'complete and review' without explaining side effects, permissions, irreversibility, or whether a rating is mandatory. The tool likely changes bounty state, but this is not disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise at eight characters, with no wasted words. However, it is too sparse to provide sufficient context, though conciseness itself is appropriately minimal.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It does not explain return values, status changes, or the workflow context, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, loosely connecting '评价' to rating/comment, but does not explain the relationship between result, comment, and the completion action.

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 '完成赏金任务并评价' clearly indicates the action of completing a bounty and providing a review, which is distinct from sibling tools like accept_bounty_application or create_bounty. It uses a specific verb (complete) and resource (bounty), though it doesn't explicitly mention marking the bounty as completed.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as having an accepted application or being the assignee, nor does it contrast with related tools like accept_bounty_application or query_bounty.

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