PatchWarden

retry_task

Retry a previously run task by creating a new task with the same plan, agent, repository, and test command, leaving the original task unchanged.

Instructions

Create a new task with the same plan, agent, repo_path, and test_command as an existing task. The original task is unchanged.

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>"
    },
    "name": "retry_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	Task ID to retry

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description explicitly states that the original task is unchanged, which is a behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, it fails to disclose other important behaviors such as whether the new task is automatically queued, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and includes a clarifying statement about the original task, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is functional. However, it lacks context about when to use it (e.g., for retrying failed tasks) and does not mention prerequisites like the existence of the original task, leaving some gaps.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter (task_id) with a description. The tool description adds value by explaining that the task_id identifies an existing task whose properties are copied, but it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a new task by copying properties (plan, agent, repo_path, test_command) from an existing task. The verb 'Create' and resource 'new task' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling creation tools like 'create_task' which likely require full specification.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_task' or 'create_subgoal_task'. It only describes what it does, leaving an agent without context for decision-making in workflows.

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

Deploy Server