Done Bear

Bulk Edit Tasks

task_bulk_edit

Destructive

Update multiple tasks at once (max 50 numbers per call). Only the provided fields in changes are applied to all specified tasks; list fields in changes.clear to remove their values. Confirm the number list with the user first: one call rewrites every task in it, and there is no undo.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	Yes	Array of workspace-scoped task numbers
`changes`	Yes	Fields to update on all tasks
`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

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the irreversibility ('there is no undo'), the partial-update semantics ('Only the provided fields in changes are applied'), and the clear-list removal behavior. This gives the agent the risk context needed before calling.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the action and cap, the core update/clear semantics, and the critical confirmation/irreversibility warning. Every sentence adds operational value.

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?

Given the destructiveHint annotation, the rich schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and safety information: target scope, update semantics, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing needed for correct invocation is omitted.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining that changes are a partial update applied to all ids and that changes.clear removes values. It also reinforces the ids maxItems constraint with 'max 50 numbers per call'.

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: 'Update multiple tasks at once', which immediately distinguishes it from single-task task_edit and bulk-done task_bulk_done. Naming the 50-number cap further scopes the operation.

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?

It states the core use case (updating multiple tasks) and gives a strong precondition: 'Confirm the number list with the user first'. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as task_edit for single-task changes, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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?