Rank agents for any task by entering its ID. Uses capability match, tag overlap, availability, and success rate to output ranked assignee suggestions.
Given a task ID, suggest the best agents to assign based on capability match, tag overlap, availability, and success rate. Returns ranked suggestions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task ID to find suitable agents for (e.g. 'task-2026-03-09-abc123'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the tool analyzes a task and returns suggestions, which implies a non-mutating behavior. However, it does not state whether this is read-only, whether agents need to be pre-registered, or how availability and success rate are determined.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and criteria, then states the output. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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 low-complexity single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it states the input, the ranking criteria, and that output is ranked suggestions. It could add more detail about the suggestion result shape or failure conditions, but these are minor 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 100% and the task_id parameter is already documented with a type and an example. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline 3 without compounding value.
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 ('suggest'), a clear resource (agents for a task ID), and explicit selection criteria ('capability match, tag overlap, availability, and success rate'). It also names the return value ('ranked suggestions'), and this clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_agents.
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 phrase 'Given a task ID' and the verb 'assign' imply the intended use case: when an agent needs to decide who should handle a task. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_agents, claim_task, or update_task, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.