Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIWorkhub

AIWorkhub

by shrec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

aiworkhub_task_amend_pending

Amend a pending, never-launched task card to widen scope or fix validation before first launch, avoiding archive-and-recreate.

Instructions

MANAGER WRITE: amend a pending card that no request was ever launched for.

Use this to widen a card's scope or fix its validation before its first launch, instead of archiving and re-creating it. allowed_writes and read_first are ADD-ONLY (deduplicated; the existing entries stay); validation REPLACES the whole list, with validation_roles aligned one-to-one (omitted roles default to generic, which a bugfix/refactor/... card's work_kind role gate refuses exactly as aiworkhub_task_create does). Paths and commands obey the same rules as aiworkhub_task_create and aiworkhub_task_reject_review's amendments, with the same refusal codes.

Only a never-launched pending card qualifies: a launched, claimed, archived or non-pending card is refused with task_amend_pending_refused:<card_already_launched|card_claimed| card_archived|card_not_pending:<state>|task_not_found>. The amendment is recorded as a card_amended_pending event in the card history (the card stays launchable) and the reply carries the new card_sha256.

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>"
    },
    "name": "aiworkhub_task_amend_pending"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
runnerNoReplacement runner (folded like task_create); refused as runner_reserved:<r> for the manager identity or runner_route_absent:<r> without a workforce route. Reply carries runner_before/runner_after.
task_idYesId of the pending, never-launched card to amend.
read_firstNoExisting repo files (optional :N or :N-M suffix) to ADD to read_first; omit to leave them.
validationNoShell-free commands that REPLACE the card's validation list; omit to keep it.
allowed_writesNoRepo-relative paths or globs to ADD to allowed_writes; omit to leave them.
validation_rolesNoOne role per validation command; only with validation. Omit for generic roles.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.13.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / runner
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Replacement runner (folded like task_create); refused as runner_reserved:<r> for the manager identity or runner_route_absent:<r> without a workforce route. Reply carries runner_before/runner_after.",
+  "title": "Runner"
+}
  2. Addedv0.12.98

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-open-world, non-destructive write. The description adds the semantics annotations cannot carry: allowed_writes/read_first are add-only and deduplicated, validation replaces the whole list, validation_roles must align one-to-one and defaulted roles are refused by the work_kind gate, the amendment emits a card_amended_pending event, and the reply carries card_sha256.

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 eligibility rule and the add-vs-replace distinction are front-loaded, and the refusal-code list is compact and useful. The parenthetical about validation_roles and the work_kind role gate is dense and negotiates two nested clauses in one breath, costing some readability.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a six-parameter mutation, the definition covers eligibility, mutation semantics per field, failure modes, side effects (history event, sha change) and confirms the card stays launchable. Return values are omitted appropriately because an output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each field, but the description still adds value by contrasting the merge strategies (add-only vs whole-list replacement), tying validation_roles to validation, and describing runner folding plus runner_before/runner_after. It largely restates the per-field add/replace notes already in the schema, which keeps it below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ('amend a pending card') plus a hard scope qualifier ('that no request was ever launched for'), which immediately separates it from create, archive and reject_review. The 'MANAGER WRITE' prefix signals the caller class as well.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use it ('widen a card's scope or fix its validation before its first launch') and names the alternative it replaces ('instead of archiving and re-creating it'). It also enumerates the disqualified states (launched, claimed, archived, non-pending) with the exact refusal codes, so an agent can pre-check eligibility.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools