mark_completedRecord a task as completed only after verifying its final state and documenting the verification, so process exit alone cannot falsely close work.
Mark a task completed after verifying the final state. Requires a verification note; completion is never inferred from process exit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ||
| verification | Yes | How completion was verified (tests run, outputs checked, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral rule (completion requires evidence, never inferred from exit codes) but says nothing about irreversibility, resulting task state, permissions, or whether the task can be reopened.
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 sentences, both front-loaded with the action and the constraint; nothing is wasted or repetitive.
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?
A two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema is adequately covered: the agent knows what it needs and the key gating rule. Missing only the post-completion effects (state transition, reversibility).
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 50%: the 'verification' parameter is documented in the schema, while 'taskId' is undocumented anywhere. The description reinforces that verification is mandatory but adds no format or identifier guidance beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('mark a task completed') and adds a precondition that no other sibling performs. It is not confused with report_progress or cancel_task, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
'After verifying the final state' states the trigger condition, and 'completion is never inferred from process exit' rules out a tempting wrong usage. It still lacks explicit routing against alternatives such as cancel_task when work is abandoned rather than finished.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.