Marks a running task as completed with its result, transitioning it to completed state. Optionally records the completing agent for mid-task handoffs.
Mark a running task completed with result. Transitions running→completed. Optional agent_name records who completed (useful if handoff mid-task: A claims, B completes).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | ||
| 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the state transition and the semantics of the optional agent_name field in a handoff scenario. It does not cover edge cases like idempotency or behavior when the task is not running, but the core behavioral character is transparent and useful.
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. The main action and state transition are front-loaded, followed by the parameter nuance. Every sentence earns its place.
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 straightforward state-transition tool with only three params and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: the transition, the result, and why agent_name matters in handoffs. It does not describe return values or error conditions, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical gaps.
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 explains that result is the completion output and agent_name records who completed, with a concrete handoff example. task_id is not described explicitly but is obvious from the tool name and required status, making the description reasonably compensatory despite the schema gap.
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 clearly states the action ('Mark a running task completed with result') and the exact state transition ('Transitions running→completed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_fail and task_claim by specifying the completion transition, so an agent can tell what this tool does without opening schemas.
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 gives clear context: use this on a running task and provide a result. It even illustrates the handoff scenario ('A claims, B completes') to explain when agent_name is useful. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives such as task_fail for failed tasks, stopping short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.