Finalize a task by capturing all git changes made during work and logging them to the task record.
Complete work on a task. Captures all git changes since work started and logs them to the task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task ID to complete | |
| summary | Yes | Brief summary of work completed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it captures git changes and logs them, but with no annotations it does not fully describe side effects such as marking the task complete or potential failure conditions.
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?
Two short, focused sentences with the main purpose front-loaded; no unnecessary wording.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers core behavior well, though it leaves some edge-case expectations implicit, such as what happens when no git changes exist.
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 coverage is 100%, but parameter descriptions are minimal and do not add extra meaning about how summary is used or any formatting/constraint details.
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?
Clearly states the tool completes work on a task and captures/logs git changes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_work_on_task or update_task.
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?
Implies use when finishing task work, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling alternatives such as start_work_on_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.