Claim a queued or repairing task with an exclusive durable lease, blocking unmet dependencies, lease conflicts, resource pressure, and worker capacity overflow so agents run safely.
Claim one queued/repairing task with an exclusive durable lease. Refuses unmet dependencies, lease conflicts, critical resource pressure, and worker-capacity overflow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| workerId | No | ||
| workerRole | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: exclusive durable leasing and four specific refusal conditions. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 concise sentences that front-load the action and then list refusal conditions. Every clause is informative and there is no wasted text.
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?
The description covers core behavior and failure modes well, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with zero parameter description coverage and no output schema, the tool definition still leaves important calling details—especially the meaning and roles of id, workerId, and workerRole—unaddressed.
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?
The schema has three parameters (id, workerId, workerRole) with 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It does not explain what id refers to, whether workerId/workerRole are required, or what values are expected, leaving parameter semantics entirely undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Claim one queued/repairing task with an exclusive durable lease.' It also defines scope (queued/repairing) and mechanism (exclusive durable lease), making the action clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings such as task_next or task_ready.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool to claim a queued/repairing task. The description lists refusal conditions—unmet dependencies, lease conflicts, resource pressure, worker-capacity overflow—which are useful preconditions but not explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.