Claim an inbox task by moving it to active status and recording the actor for attribution without granting authority.
Request Core T2 inbox to active; actor records attribution and grants no authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | Yes | ||
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.5Input schema / properties / actor / defaultRemoved value: -"agent"Input schema / properties / actor / descriptionRemoved value: -"Role code of the agent claiming the task (default ``\"agent\"``)."Input schema / properties / task_id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Task ID (e.g. ``TASK-20260423-001``) or full filename."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "task_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "task_id",
+ "actor"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv3.2.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the actor records attribution and that the action 'grants no authority', which is useful, but it does not explain mutation side effects, permissions, idempotency, failure behavior, or what happens to the task state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is a single sentence and front-loads the transition phrase, so it is not bloated. However, the concise wording is cryptic and under-specifies key details rather than making every clause maximally useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter task-lifecycle tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It adds one safety-related behavioral note but leaves parameter roles, return behavior, and operational context largely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It gives some meaning for 'actor' by saying attribution is recorded and authority is not granted, but it says nothing about 'task_id' beyond the vague 'Core T2 inbox to active' phrase.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates a transition from 'inbox to active' for 'Core T2', which hints at claiming a task, but the phrase 'Core T2' is undefined jargon and the plain action 'claim a task' is never stated. It is specific enough to suggest a lifecycle transition but vague enough that an agent must infer the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings such as submit_task, approve_task, or create_task. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.