Done Bear MCP

Manage Project

project

Destructive

Create or change a project. action: "add" creates one (name required). action: "edit" updates the named project: only the fields given change, and an empty string clears description or target_date. action: "join" puts it in the caller's Your projects sidebar list and action: "leave" takes it out. Read projects with get_context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Project name. Required on add; a rename on edit
`action`	Yes	What to do with the project
`status`	No	Project status (edit only)
`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."
`project`	No	Project id, key, or name. Required for edit, join and leave
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`description`	No	Project description (empty string clears it on an edit)
`target_date`	No	Target date (YYYY-MM-DD), or an empty string to clear it (edit only)
`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	Default
`id`	Yes
`ok`	Yes
`key`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`action`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description enriches that with concrete behavior: edits are partial ('only the fields given change'), empty strings clear description/target_date, and join/leave mutate sidebar membership. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence earns its place by explaining one action or a key edge case. It is dense but compact, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool with four actions, the description covers all behavioral decisions the agent must make, while the rich schema and output schema cover remaining parameter details and return values. It even names the read alternative to complete the workflow picture.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the action enum and partial-update/clearing behavior. It does not duplicate every parameter but focuses on the non-obvious action-dependent constraints.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Create or change a project') and then enumerates the four distinct actions (add, edit, join, leave) with their exact effects. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_context and task_add by resource and operation type.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit action semantics and tells the agent when to use the read alternative: 'Read projects with get_context.' Each action's precondition (add requires name; edit, join, leave target the named project) is stated, so there is little ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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?