Mark a todo item as completed by slug; if it was already done, the call does nothing and reports already_done: true.
Mark a todo as done. Calling it on an already-done todo is a no-op and reports already_done: true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true; the description goes further by concretely explaining the no-op semantics on an already-done todo and naming the response field already_done: true, which is valuable since no output schema exists. It still omits success-path return info or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the edge-case behavior follows immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious behavior (idempotent no-op and the already_done flag). It could say more about the success response, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the 'slug' parameter, so it does not compensate for the gap. The parameter is a single obvious identifier whose format is documented by the schema pattern and maxLength, so the omission is not severe.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource ('Mark a todo as done'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like todo_add and todo_delete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from todo_update, which could plausibly also change a todo's state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied by the name and first sentence, and the description notes the already-done case is harmless, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over todo_update or other siblings, nor any stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.