Claim a pending task by its ID to mark it as running and record the claimant. Prevents conflicts by rejecting tasks that are not pending or already claimed.
Claim a pending task by id. Transitions pending→running, records claimant. Rejects if not pending (blackboard auto-claim).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | ||
| agent_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description correctly carries the burden and discloses the state transition, claimant recording, and rejection behavior. However, it leaves important behavioral details ambiguous: what 'blackboard auto-claim' means, concurrency/locking behavior, and what happens on success or failure are not specified.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler: first the core action, then the transition/effect, then the rejection condition. It is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place, though 'blackboard auto-claim' is slightly cryptic.
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 mutating lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential trigger, precondition, and transition. However, the ambiguity of 'blackboard auto-claim', the optionality of agent_name, and the lack of success/failure semantics leave meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It associates task_id with 'by id' and implies agent_name through 'records claimant', but it never explicitly names agent_name as the claimant or explains whether it is required. Some meaning is added, but the parameter semantics remain under-specified.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Claim a pending task by id.' It then clarifies the exact state transition (pending→running) and side effect (records claimant), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from lifecycle siblings like task_complete or task_fail.
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?
The description provides a clear precondition: the task must be pending, and it explicitly states that non-pending tasks are rejected. This gives an agent actionable guidance on when to call the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for other states.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.