Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
feishu-user-plugin

feishu-user-plugin

by EthanQC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

complete_task

Toggle a task's completion status: mark it complete or uncomplete with a single boolean. Sets timestamps automatically.

Instructions

[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7] Mark a task complete (or uncomplete it). Convenience wrapper around update_task with completed_at.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_guid": "<task_guid>"
    },
    "name": "complete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_guidYesTask GUID
completedNotrue → mark complete (uses Date.now()); false → uncomplete (sets completed_at to "0"). Default true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.10

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool can both complete and uncomplete tasks, and that it delegates to update_task, but it doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or return values.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. The version note is brief and adds context without bloating.

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

Completeness4/5

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

This is a simple 2-parameter mutation tool with complete schema coverage. The description clearly states the behavior and relationship to update_task, but since there's no output schema, it could have mentioned the return value for full completeness. Still, the overall context is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's descriptions are sufficient.

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?

Description states 'Mark a task complete (or uncomplete it)' with a clear verb and resource. It explicitly notes it is a 'Convenience wrapper around update_task with completed_at', distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_task.

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 explains when to use this tool by framing it as a convenience wrapper around update_task, implying it's for quick completion/uncompletion. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives beyond the implied update_task.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools