Done Bear MCP

List Tasks

task_list

Read-only

List tasks in the workspace, most recently updated first. Filter by view (inbox, today, upcoming, anytime, someday) and/or state (open, done, archived, all); search ranks matches within that filter. Returns up to limit tasks; hasMore is true when more matched than were returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	No	Filter by GTD view bucket
`limit`	No	Max results
`state`	No	Filter by task state	open
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor from a previous call's `nextCursor`. Pass it with the same filters to fetch the next page.
`search`	No	Ranked lexical search over title/description; when set, results are ordered by relevance instead of recency
`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."
`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
`count`	Yes
`tasks`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes	True when more results matched than were returned
`nextCursor`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive; the description goes beyond them by disclosing recency ordering, the fact that search re-orders results by relevance, and the limit/hasMore pagination contract. It does not cover rate limits or auth details, but those are less critical given the readOnly and openWorld hints.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff; the core action and sort order are front-loaded before filters and pagination. Every clause earns its place and the description is easy to scan.

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 a rich output schema and readOnly annotations, the description covers the main contract: ordering, filters, search, limit, and hasMore. It would be a 5 if the state filter were clearly represented in the input schema and if sibling alternatives were named; as it stands, an agent could be confused by the missing state parameter.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds useful semantics for view/state/search/limit and hasMore, but it also references a `state` filter that is not present in the supplied schema, creating ambiguity about which parameter carries that filter. This mismatch prevents a higher score.

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 an unambiguous verb+resource ('List tasks in the workspace') and adds the default sort order ('most recently updated first'), plus filter dimensions (view/state) and search behavior. This clearly separates it from siblings like task_show (single task) and search (lexical ranking) even without naming them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated: the description makes clear this is the workspace-wide listing tool with filters and pagination, but it does not provide when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, such as 'use search for cross-workspace discovery' or 'use task_show for a single task'. The sibling set suggests such routing guidance would be valuable.

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?