mnema

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Move a task through the workflow

task_transition

Move a task by ID to a new workflow state across projects, enforcing legal transitions and required proof; illegal moves or missing reasons, notes, or feedback are refused.

Instructions

Move an existing task to a new state (submit, start, block, unblock, submit_review, request_changes, approve, complete, cancel, reopen). The workflow gate decides whether the move is legal and carries the proof it requires: block/cancel/reopen need a reason, approve/complete a note, request_changes a feedback; an illegal move or missing proof is refused. The task is looked for in EVERY project of this workspace and the move lands in the project that holds it, so no project is taken here: the id decides where the move goes. RECORDING IS PERMANENT: mnema is append-only and nothing deletes a fact. A record in the public scope is committed to the repository and reaches every machine that clones it (published, if that repository is public). So do NOT record credentials here. Values in a recognized format (cloud keys, API tokens, private keys, a password inside a URL) are replaced with a typed placeholder before anything is written and the reply says what was replaced, but a format mnema does not recognize is written verbatim and cannot be taken back. Do not record personal data either: an email address is replaced with and reported, and the mnid already says who wrote. Each text field holds at most 65536 bytes; a longer one is refused, not truncated.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "task_transition"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The task id to move.
`note`	No	What was done (approve, complete).
`action`	Yes	The transition to request.
`reason`	No	Why (block, cancel, reopen).
`feedback`	No	What must change (request_changes).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that a workflow gate validates legality, that refusals occur on missing proof, that the id is resolved across every project, and that recording is permanent and append-only. The credential and personal-data redaction rules (typed placeholders, <email>, 65536-byte limit) are real behavioral disclosures about side effects and failure modes. The extended blanket about mnema storage reads as boilerplate shared across tools but does not contradict the non-destructive hint, since nothing is deleted.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The front-loading is good: states come first, then gate requirements, then storage behavior. However, roughly half the text is generic mnema append-only/credential/personal-data boilerplate that is not specific to transitioning a task, diluting the tool-specific guidance and burying the 65536-byte limit at the tail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers validation gates, required proof per action, scoping behavior, and write permanence. It omits what a successful call returns (new state, history entry), which is the remaining gap for a tool whose reply is referenced but not characterized.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the action-to-field mapping that the description repeats. The one genuine addition is the semantics of 'id': it is searched in every project of the workspace and determines where the move lands, which is not stated in the schema. That is useful but thin relative to the length of the parameter discussion.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('an existing task') and enumerates all ten target states, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from decision_transition or skill_transition, leaving the sibling boundary to be inferred from the resource name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete when-conditions per action: block/cancel/reopen need a reason, approve/complete a note, request_changes a feedback, and it warns that illegal moves or missing proof are refused. It also clarifies that no project parameter is needed because the id determines the project. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool for non-task transitions.

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