Done Bear

Manage Project

project

Destructive

Create or change a project. action: "add" creates one (name required). action: "edit" updates the named project: only the fields given change, and an empty string clears description or target_date. action: "join" puts it in the caller's Your projects sidebar list and action: "leave" takes it out. Read projects with get_context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Project name. Required on add; a rename on edit
`action`	Yes	What to do with the project
`status`	No	Project status (edit only)
`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. Required for edit, join and leave
`workspace`	No	Workspace id, slug, or name
`description`	No	Project description (empty string clears it on an edit)
`target_date`	No	Target date (YYYY-MM-DD), or an empty string to clear it (edit only)
`idempotency_key`	No	Stable key that makes retries safe: repeated calls with the same key create only one record and return the same id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`ok`	Yes
`key`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`action`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as mutable and destructive, so the description adds valuable action-level behavior: add creates, edit only changes provided fields, empty string clears description/target_date, and join/leave affect the caller's sidebar list. It does not cover all side effects such as permissions or irreversibility, but the annotations and schema lower that burden.

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 carry the full behavioral contract without fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the action-by-action breakdown is scannable and directly tied to the enum values in the schema.

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 9-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior an agent cannot infer from structured fields: per-action semantics, required parameters per action, and the read alternative. Nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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 goes beyond the schema by clarifying action-specific parameter rules: name is required on add, project is needed for edit/join/leave, and empty strings have a clearing effect. This meaningfully helps an agent construct valid calls.

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 and resource: 'Create or change a project,' then enumerates exactly what each action does (add, edit, join, leave). It also differentiates from the sibling get_context by explicitly directing read operations there.

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 gives clear context for when to use each action and states that reads should be done with get_context. It does not explicitly compare against task_* or other siblings, but the resource boundary (project vs. tasks/attachments/comments) is evident enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Done Bear 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

Most tools map to clearly distinct resources and actions: task lifecycle verbs, sub-resource tools (attachment, checklist, comment), and search are easy to tell apart. The only mild overlaps are search vs task_list's built-in search parameter and get_context vs task_list for recent tasks, but the descriptions give enough guidance to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Task operations consistently follow a task_verb pattern, but other tools use bare resource nouns (attachment, checklist, comment, project), plus get_context, guide, label_create, and search break the pattern further. The names are readable, but the convention is mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, the set sits at the upper end of the well-scoped range but each tool has a distinct responsibility: task lifecycle, search, sub-resources, project/label management, context, and guidance. None feel redundant, and the count matches the breadth of the task-management domain.

Completeness3/5

Core task workflows are well covered: create, read, update, complete, reopen, archive, list, and search, plus comments, checklists, and attachments. Notable gaps remain: labels only support creation, archived tasks have no explicit restore path, and projects cannot be deleted or archived.

Resources

Need Help?