Skip to main content
Glama

Habitica: edit a checklist

habitica_manage_checklist
Destructive

Add, rename, check or uncheck, or remove checklist items on a Habitica daily or to-do, then return the updated task with item IDs.

Instructions

Add, rename, check/uncheck or remove checklist items of a daily or to-do. Returns the task with its checklist item ids.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemNoExisting item id or text (rename, toggle, remove)
taskYesTask id (preferred), alias, or its text. Partial text works when it matches exactly one task.
textNoItem text (add, rename)
actionYes'add' a new item; 'rename' an item; 'toggle' checks or unchecks an item; 'remove' deletes an item (needs confirm=true)
confirmNoSet to true only after the user explicitly agreed to this irreversible action. When false the tool only returns a preview and changes nothing.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskNo
statusYes
messageYes
created_tagsNoTags that did not exist and were created

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the low bar applies — yet the description adds little beyond them. It omits the confirm/preview safety behavior and the irreversibility of 'remove', and its return-value note is redundant with the existing output schema.

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 tight sentences, action scope first and return shape second, with zero filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema, 100% schema coverage and full annotations, most structured needs are met. However, for a destructive mutation tool the description should at least signal that removal requires confirm/preview, which is an important behavioral fact an agent would benefit from seeing up front.

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 fully documents task resolution, item/text usage per action, and confirm. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 pairs a specific verb set (add, rename, check/uncheck, remove) with a precise resource (checklist items of a daily or to-do) and states the return value. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like habitica_update_task or habitica_delete_task, which operate on the task itself rather than its checklist.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The four enumerated actions imply when the tool applies, but no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. 'to edit task fields use habitica_update_task'). Exclusions and prerequisites are left implicit.

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