Done Bear MCP

Edit Task

task_edit

Idempotent

Update one or more fields on an existing task. Only the provided fields are changed; omitted fields are left untouched. To remove a value, list the field in clear (e.g. clear: ["deadline"]). Notes replace the existing notes (no append). Use label_add/label_remove to change labels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	Yes	Workspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
`team`	No	Team id, key, or name
`when`	No	Move to a different GTD view
`clear`	No	Fields to remove a value from, e.g. ["deadline"]. Use this rather than sending an empty string.
`notes`	No	New description/notes (replaces existing)
`title`	No	New 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."
`project`	No	Project id, key, or name
`assignee`	No	Assign to a member (user id, name, or email)
`deadline`	No	Set due date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone used to resolve "today" for views and scheduling (e.g. Australia/Melbourne). Defaults to UTC, which misclassifies Today/Upcoming for users in other timezones, so always pass the user's timezone when known.
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`ok`	Yes
`action`	Yes
`number`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining partial-update semantics ('omitted fields are left untouched'), the clear mechanism for removing values, and that notes replace rather than append. These are important behavioral details not captured by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructivHint. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences long, starts with the core action, and every sentence carries essential information. No fluff or repetition; the clear example is compact and illustrative.

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 tool with 12 parameters and an output schema, the description plus rich schema descriptions cover all necessary invocation details: what changes, what doesn't, how to clear fields, how notes behave, and where labels go. Output schema exists, so return-value description is not required. No critical gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that only provided fields change, how to use 'clear' instead of empty strings, and that notes replace existing content. This enhances parameter understanding without restating every field.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing task') and clearly states it updates one or more fields. It also distinguishes itself from label-manipulation siblings by directing label changes to label_add/label_remove. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—updating an existing task—and explicitly routes label changes to label_add/label_remove. It includes specific instructions for removing values via 'clear' and notes replacement behavior, but does not explicitly state when not to use it versus other mutation tools like task_bulk_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

A3.6/5.0

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?