start_taskMark a task as in progress to track work in a shared markdown record, allowing only one active task at a time.
Mark a Task in progress. Only one Task can be in progress at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | The Task ID, such as 't3'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose one meaningful trait: the singleton in-progress constraint. It omits the consequence of violating that constraint (error vs. implicit stop of the current task), idempotency on an already-started task, and any permission requirements.
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, action stated first, constraint second — no filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.
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 one-parameter state-transition tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is close to adequate. The gap is the failure mode when another task is already in progress, which is the most likely real-world call condition and is left unexplained.
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 the single 'task' parameter is documented with an example format ('t3'). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Mark a Task in progress'), which cleanly separates it from complete_task, drop_task, and update_task siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings or contrasting the state transitions explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
It supplies a precondition ('Only one Task can be in progress at a time'), which implies when the call is appropriate. However, it never says when to prefer this over complete_task/drop_task/update_task, nor what the agent should do if a task is already in progress.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.