Claims a READY task for a specific worker model so it can begin execution in an autonomous development workflow.
Claims a READY task for execution by a specific worker model
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | ID of the task to claim | |
| workerId | Yes | Identifier of the worker model claiming the task (e.g. claude-3-7, gpt-4o, gemini) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a state mutation (a task becomes claimed by a worker) but omits whether the claim is exclusive/atomic, whether it fails on an already-claimed task, whether the claim expires, and what the call returns.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the precondition (READY) and the constraint (specific worker model) both land immediately. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that some needed context was trimmed away.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, in a cluster of task-lifecycle siblings (task_next, task_complete, task_fail). An agent still lacks failure semantics, claim exclusivity, and return information, so the definition is under-complete for its complexity.
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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including examples of worker identifiers. The description only alludes to the READY constraint and adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (claims) plus resource (task) plus the precondition state (READY) and the actor (worker model) — an agent knows exactly what this does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling task_next, which likely also hands out work, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
'READY task' implies the precondition for calling it, which is useful implicit guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over task_next, nor what to do if the task is not READY or already claimed — no explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.