Done Bear

Bulk Complete Tasks

task_bulk_done

Destructive

Mark multiple tasks as complete at once (max 50 task numbers per call). Confirm the number list with the user first: this is undone one task_reopen at a time, so a wrong 50-task set is a 50-call cleanup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	Yes	Array of workspace-scoped task numbers
`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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral context: completion is reversible only one task at a time via task_reopen, and a mistaken 50-task batch would require a 50-call cleanup. This is exactly the kind of risk disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive bulk operation.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core action and limit, the second gives the essential user-confirmation and cost-of-error warning. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 destructive bulk operation, the description covers what the tool does, its maximum batch size, the required user confirmation step, and the consequence of a wrong batch. An output schema exists, so lacking return-value details is not a gap.

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 the schema already documents ids, context, and workspace. The description reinforces the meaning of ids as 'task numbers' and the 50-item limit, but does not add substantial new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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: 'Mark multiple tasks as complete at once,' with an explicit cap of 50 task numbers. This clearly distinguishes it from single-task tools like task_done and bulk-edit tools like task_bulk_edit.

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 usage context: use it to complete multiple tasks in one call, up to 50, and confirm the number list with the user first. It does not explicitly name the alternative task_done for single-task completion, but the bulk-vs-single distinction is strongly implied.

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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped cleanly by resource (task, checklist, comment, label, project, attachment), so most actions have an obvious owner. The main ambiguities are task_list vs. search and checklist_done vs. checklist_edit, but the descriptions call out the intended boundaries clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant resource_verb pattern (task_add, task_edit, checklist_list, comment_remove, project_join) is consistent and predictable. A few outliers like get_context, guide, search, and task_attachment_list break the pattern, but the naming remains readable and mostly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this is a very large surface for an agent to choose from and exceeds the 25-tool threshold where count becomes a liability. The tools are well organized, but the repeated verb families across six resources make the total feel heavy even though each tool is plausibly justified.

Completeness4/5

The core task lifecycle is well covered: create, show, edit, list, complete, reopen, archive, assign, and bulk operations, plus full checklist, comment, label, and attachment workflows. Notable gaps are the lack of an explicit unarchive/restore path and no label edit/delete, but these are minor enough that agents can usually work around them.

Resources

Need Help?