Done Bear MCP

Manage Task Checklist

checklist

Destructive

Change the checklist on a task. action: "add" appends items, unchecked, after the existing ones: pass every title for a multi-item list in one call (titles keeps the given order, while parallel single adds land in arrival order). action: "edit" renames an item and/or checks it (completed: true) or unchecks it (completed: false). action: "remove" deletes one. Read the list, with each item's id and state, from task_show.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item`	No	Checklist item UUID or prefix (>= 4 chars). Required to edit or remove
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`title`	No	One item title to add, or the new title on an edit
`action`	Yes	What to do to the checklist
`titles`	No	Several item titles to add, kept in the given order (use instead of `title`)
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`completed`	No	Check (true) or uncheck (false) the item, on an edit
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`idempotency_key`	No	Stable key that makes retries safe: repeated calls with the same key create only one record and return the same id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`items`	Yes	The items the call created or changed
`action`	Yes
`taskId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses key behaviors: added items are appended unchecked, `titles` preserves order, parallel adds land in arrival order, edit can rename and/or toggle completion, and remove deletes one item. This gives an agent an accurate mental model of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then efficiently explains each action with relevant behavioral detail. No sentences are wasted, and the guidance about order and task_show earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: all actions are defined, required item IDs are sourced from task_show, and output schema covers return values. It leans on the schema for scoping parameters like `workspace` and `idempotency_key`, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema already documents all parameters, and the description adds meaning beyond it by explaining the relationship between `title` and `titles`, the ordering guarantee, and how `completed: true/false` behaves on edit. This is substantial parameter-level value on top of high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Change the checklist on a task,' then enumerates the three supported actions (`add`, `edit`, `remove`). It also distinguishes itself from task_show by explicitly directing reads there.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives concrete usage guidance, especially for multi-item adds: pass all titles in one call via `titles` to preserve order, instead of parallel single adds. It also names task_show as the place to read the checklist, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this over sibling tools like task_edit.

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

All Done Bear MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Task operations are clearly separated into distinct actions, and the resource tools (attachment, checklist, comment, project) are each tied to a specific object. The main ambiguity is between search and task_list, since task_list accepts a search parameter; descriptions help, but an agent could still misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Task tools follow a consistent task_verb pattern, but other tools mix bare nouns with an action parameter (attachment, checklist, comment, project), use reversed noun_verb (label_create), or are bare verbs/nouns (search, guide). The set is readable but not uniformly patterned.

Tool Count5/5

15 tools is within the well-scoped range for a task-management server, and each tool covers a distinct area: task lifecycle, search, context, projects, labels, attachments, checklists, comments, and guidance. No tool feels redundant or gratuitous.

Completeness4/5

The task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, list, edit, complete, reopen, and archive. Minor gaps include no permanent task deletion, no label update/delete tool, and no project removal, but these are workable and do not block core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?