Done Bear

Search Tasks

search

Read-only

Search tasks across the workspace. Ranked lexical search over title and description: exact and prefix matches rank first, then word-boundary, substring, and fuzzy matches, with recency and status factored in. Multi-word queries match in any order. Searches every state by default, completed and archived included. Use this when the user names a task by its words; use task_list to browse a view (Today, Inbox, …) and task_show once you have the task number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max results
`query`	Yes	Search query (matches title and description)
`state`	No	Filter by task state	all
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor from a previous call's `nextCursor`. Pass it with the same filters to fetch the next page.
`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
`query`	Yes
`tasks`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`hasMore`	Yes	True when more results matched than were returned
`nextCursor`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / tasks / items / properties / completedAt

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Completion instant in UTC (ISO 8601), or null for an unfinished task"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / tasks / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "assigneeId",
-  "completed",
-  "deadline",
-  "description",
-  "id",
-  "number",
-  "projectId",
-  "startDate",
-  "state",
-  "teamId",
-  "title",
-  "view"
-]New value: +[
+  "assigneeId",
+  "completed",
+  "completedAt",
+  "deadline",
+  "description",
+  "id",
+  "number",
+  "projectId",
+  "startDate",
+  "state",
+  "teamId",
+  "title",
+  "view"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / tasks / items / properties / completed

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "The date (YYYY-MM-DD) the task was completed, in the requested timezone. Null while it is still open"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / tasks / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "assigneeId",
-  "deadline",
-  "description",
-  "id",
-  "number",
-  "projectId",
-  "startDate",
-  "state",
-  "teamId",
-  "title",
-  "view"
-]New value: +[
+  "assigneeId",
+  "completed",
+  "deadline",
+  "description",
+  "id",
+  "number",
+  "projectId",
+  "startDate",
+  "state",
+  "teamId",
+  "title",
+  "view"
+]

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: default search over every state including completed/archived, multi-word matching in any order, and the ranking algorithm. This exceeds what the structured annotations alone provide.

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 front-loaded with the core search function, then gives behavioral specifics, then usage alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only search tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is sufficient: it covers default behavior, ranking, workspace scope, and sibling routing. Missing details like rate limits are not essential for reliable invocation.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining query matching behavior, ranking, and the default state scope. It does not restate every parameter, which is acceptable given the schema already documents them thoroughly.

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 ('Search tasks across the workspace') and details the lexical search behavior, including ranking priority and match types. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the siblings task_list and task_show by naming them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use search when the user names a task by its words. It also names alternatives (task_list for browsing views, task_show once the task number is known), leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?