renew_leaseExtend the lease on a task currently held by one of the caller's workers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task id, or a pasted Tango task URL. | |
| worker_id | No | Optional. Defaults to the worker bound to this MCP connection. | |
| lease_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states the core behavior—extending a lease—and adds an eligibility condition, but it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether the extension resets or adds to the current expiry, or what the tool returns. Annotations only mark it as non-read-only and non-destructive, so they don't fill this gap.
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?
One short sentence with the essential action and precondition front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the title.
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 simple one-required-parameter mutation, the core invocation is clear. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't state what a successful renewal returns, what the default lease_seconds behavior is when omitted, or what happens when the precondition isn't met.
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?
With 67% schema coverage, task_id and worker_id are already documented; the description adds only the context that the task must be currently held. lease_seconds has no description, though its name plus min/max bounds make its purpose inferable. The description contributes little beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb and resource—'Extend the lease on a task'—and adds a scope constraint: 'currently held by one of the caller's workers.' This is enough to identify the operation and distinguish it from lease-acquiring siblings like claim_task, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.
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?
'Currently held by one of the caller's workers' is a clear precondition: use this only for tasks the caller already holds, which implies don't use it to acquire a new lease. It doesn't name alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.
At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.
The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.