Done Bear MCP

Bulk Edit Tasks

task_bulk_edit

Destructive

Update multiple tasks at once (max 50 numbers per call). Only the provided fields in changes are applied to all specified tasks; list fields in changes.clear to remove their values. Confirm the number list with the user first: one call rewrites every task in it, and there is no undo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	Yes	Array of workspace-scoped task numbers
`changes`	Yes	Fields to update on all tasks
`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."
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`tasks`	Yes	Every task the call changed, in the order it was given

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that one call 'rewrites every task in it' and that 'there is no undo'. It also clarifies the partial-update semantics: only provided fields are applied and clear removes values, which helps the agent understand the tool's full behavioral contract.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core action and constraints, then provides the essential behavioral caveats in a compact way. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's destructiveness and the presence of an output schema plus complete input schema, the description covers all essential context: what is updated, how partial updates work, the maximum batch size, the confirmation requirement, and the irreversibility. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaningful semantics on top: it explains that changes apply to all tasks, that clear removes field values rather than setting them to empty strings, and reinforces the 50-number cap. This goes beyond the schema and reduces ambiguity.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Update multiple tasks at once', with a specific resource (tasks) and operation (bulk update). It also distinguishes itself from single-task tools by emphasizing the batch nature and the 50-item limit.

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?

It gives clear usage context by saying 'Update multiple tasks at once' and explains when to be cautious: 'Confirm the number list with the user first'. It does not explicitly name alternatives like task_edit or bulk_done, but the bulk vs. single-task distinction is implicit and sufficient for routing.

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and each family (checklist, comment, label, project, task) follows the same shape. The main blur is between search and task_list's optional search filter, and convenience tools like checklist_done overlap with checklist_edit.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case noun_verb (task_add, checklist_list, comment_remove), with consistent verb families across resources. A few outliers like get_context, search, and guide break the pattern, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a heavy surface for a task-management server and exceeds the 25-tool threshold. Several tools are convenience variants (task_done vs task_bulk_done, checklist_done vs checklist_edit) that could be consolidated or represented as parameters.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, complete, reopen, archive, list, assign, and bulk operations, with full checklist and comment CRUD. Notable gaps are label deletion/renaming, project deletion, and search being limited to tasks, but these are minor for the apparent product scope.

Resources

Need Help?