Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentMesh MCP

AgentMesh MCP

by johannschiffer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

complete_task

Finalize an in-progress AgentMesh task by submitting its output result and releasing the claiming agent, preventing duplicate or stalled parallel work.

Instructions

Mark an in_progress task as completed with output results.

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>"
    },
    "name": "complete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoOutput payload or summary result.
task_idYesID of the task to complete.
agent_idYesAgent ID that held the claim.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the state transition (in_progress -> completed) and that output results accompany it, but says nothing about idempotency, error behavior when the task is not in_progress or not claimed by the caller, or what happens to the agent's claim.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state precondition and outcome are stated immediately.

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 state-transition mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the essential precondition is present but the edge-case behavior an agent needs (what if the task is not in_progress, is the result required, what is returned) is absent.

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 schema already documents task_id, agent_id, and the result payload. The description adds nothing beyond a loose reference to "output results," making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ("Mark an in_progress task as completed") and names the resulting state, which is more informative than the bare tool name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling fail_task, which is the nearest alternative for ending a task.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase "in_progress task" implies a precondition and thus when the tool applies, but there is no explicit routing guidance between this and fail_task, nor any statement about what happens if the task is in another state.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools