Done Bear MCP

Complete Task

task_done

Mark a task as complete, or several at once with tasks (max 50). They move to the Logbook view. A set of 50 is undone one task_reopen call at a time, so confirm the list with the user first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	No	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`tasks`	No	Several workspace-scoped task numbers (max 50), instead of `task`. Confirm the list with the user first: one call changes every task in it.
`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
`action`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / tasks

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Several workspace-scoped task numbers (max 50), instead of `task`. Confirm the list with the user first: one call changes every task in it.",
+  "items": {
+    "description": "Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string",
+    "pattern": "^[1-9]\\d*$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 50,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "task",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "context"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / count

Added value: +{
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / id

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / number

Removed value: -{
-  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
-  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-  "type": "integer"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / tasks

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Every task the call changed, in the order it was given",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "number": {
+        "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+        "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "title": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id",
+      "number",
+      "title"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "action",
-  "id",
-  "number",
-  "ok"
-]New value: +[
+  "action",
+  "count",
+  "ok",
+  "tasks"
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations providing only readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: completion moves tasks to the Logbook view, and batch completion requires one reopen call per task to undo. This clarifies the real-world consequence of the mutation and the reversibility profile beyond the annotation flags.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, the batch behavior is stated next, and the caveat about undo cost and user confirmation is placed last. Every sentence carries relevant information.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the operation, batching rules, state transition, and the undo workflow. It is slightly less explicit about when not to use this tool in favor of siblings, but the essential context for a correct call is present.

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, but the description adds useful parameter-level meaning by explaining the batch consequence of `tasks` and why confirming the list is important. It also reinforces the max-50 constraint already present in the schema, while leaving `task`, `context`, and `workspace` semantics to their already thorough schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination, 'Mark a task as complete', and immediately covers the batch variant with `tasks`. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining completed tasks 'move to the Logbook view' and mentioning `task_reopen` as the undo path, so an agent can tell it apart from `task_archive`, `task_edit`, and related tools.

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 clearly states when to use `task` versus `tasks`, caps the batch at 50, and instructs confirming the list with the user first. It references `task_reopen` as the reversal mechanism, giving useful scoping context, though it does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer sibling tools such as `task_archive` or `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?