Done Bear MCP

Reopen Task

task_reopen

Idempotent

Reopen a completed task, or several at once with tasks (max 50). Each returns to its previous view.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already show this mutation is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: each reopened task 'returns to its previous view' and batch calls are capped at 50. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that covers the action, the batch option, the limit, and the key effect. There is no filler or redundant detail, and every phrase earns its place.

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 complete schema coverage, the provided annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and primary behavior. The user-confirmation requirement for `tasks` is handled in the schema rather than the description, which is acceptable, so only minor additional context such as explicit state-change consequences is missing.

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%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description in the input schema. The tool description restates only the max-50 limit and the choice between `task` and `tasks`, which does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Reopen a completed task.' It also adds the batch variant via `tasks` and the outcome 'Each returns to its previous view,' which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like task_done and task_edit. Even without naming alternatives, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 indicates when to use the tool: for reopening completed tasks, either singly or in batches. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as 'do not use for archived tasks' or 'use task_done for completing instead,' so it lacks full when-not guidance but provides solid contextual usage.

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?