Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentMesh MCP

AgentMesh MCP

by johannschiffer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fail_task

Marks an in-progress task as failed and records the error reason or traceback so coordinating agents can update task state.

Instructions

Mark an in_progress task as failed with an error description.

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": "fail_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoFailure reason or error traceback.
task_idYesID of the task.
agent_idYesAgent ID that held the claim.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a state mutation but does not disclose the resulting state, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or that the 'error' parameter is optional per the schema despite the wording 'with an error description' suggesting it is supplied.

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 zero filler; the operation and its precondition 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 simple state-transition tool with complete parameter documentation, the description covers the core action and precondition. It still omits post-condition behavior (what status the task ends in, whether a follow-up is needed) and permission expectations, which matter for a mutation with no annotations or output schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented (error, task_id, agent_id). The description only restates the error argument and adds no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('mark ... as failed') and resource ('task'), plus a precondition ('in_progress') that distinguishes it from complete_task and create_task. It does not explicitly name a sibling for routing, but the fail/complete contrast is unambiguous.

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 the task must already be claimed before failing, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no statement about what happens if the task is not in_progress, and no comparison to complete_task.

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