Skip to main content
Glama

Done Bear

by com.donebear

Edit Task

task_edit
Idempotent

Update one or more fields on an existing task. Only the provided fields are changed; omitted fields are left untouched. To remove a value, list the field in clear (e.g. clear: ["deadline"]). Notes replace the existing notes (no append). Use label_add/label_remove to change labels.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesWorkspace-scoped task number, encoded as a string
teamNoTeam id, key, or name
whenNoMove to a different GTD view
clearNoFields to remove a value from, e.g. ["deadline"]. Use this rather than sending an empty string.
notesNoNew description/notes (replaces existing)
titleNoNew title
contextYesExplain 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."
projectNoProject id, key, or name
assigneeNoAssign to a member (user id, name, or email)
deadlineNoSet due date (YYYY-MM-DD)
timezoneNoIANA 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.
workspaceNoWorkspace id, slug, or name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
okYes
actionYes
numberYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond the annotations: omitted fields are untouched, values are removed via the clear array, notes replace rather than append, and label changes are out of scope. This gives the agent a clear mental model of mutation behavior.

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?

Four concise sentences, each adding necessary information: the core action, partial-update behavior, the clearing mechanism, and the notes replacement caveat. It is front-loaded and contains no 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?

Given the full schema coverage, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers all critical invocation semantics: how to update, how to clear, and which sibling tools to use instead. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for clear and notes, and clarifies that omitted fields are not modified, which applies to all parameters. This goes beyond what the schema alone states.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update one or more fields on an existing task') and immediately conveys partial-update semantics. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing label changes to label_add/label_remove.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose for editing a single existing task and gives an explicit alternative for labels ('Use label_add/label_remove to change labels'). It does not contrast with task_bulk_edit, but the singular focus and label alternative provide adequate guidance for most routing decisions.

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

All Done Bear toolsInspect
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