VibeTape MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

assign_task

Hand off a task to another actor by specifying the task ID and target actor, with an optional note to preserve workflow context.

Instructions

Assign or handoff a task to another actor

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "to_actor": "<to_actor>"
    },
    "name": "assign_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task_id`	Yes	Task ID
`to_actor`	Yes	Actor ID to assign to
`from_actor`	No	Current actor (for handoff tracking)
`handoff_note`	No	Note about the handoff

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the task's assignee changes, whether notifications are sent, or if from_actor is required for handoff tracking).

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could be more structured by separating 'assign' and 'handoff' scenarios.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or the difference between a simple assign and a handoff, leaving a significant information gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'to_actor' is the recipient of the handoff, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description uses a specific verb ('Assign or handoff') with a resource ('a task') and target ('another actor'), clearly indicating the core function. It distinguishes from create_task and update_task by focusing on reassignment/handoff, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar-sounding create_handoff_for_agent sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like create_handoff_for_agent or update_task. The phrase 'Assign or handoff' implies a use case but provides no exclusions or context for choosing it over siblings.

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