taskdog-mcp

complete_task

Mark a task as completed by updating its status to COMPLETED and recording the end time. Close out tasks and keep completion records.

Instructions

Mark a task as completed.

Changes status to COMPLETED and records end time.

Args: task_id: ID of the task to complete

Returns: Updated task data with completion confirmation

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_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "complete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.26.0Aug 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the key effects (status change to COMPLETED, end time recording), but it does not mention prerequisites, idempotency, or behavior if the task is already completed. This leaves some gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, Args, and Returns. Each sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and scannable.

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?

The description covers purpose, effect, parameter meaning, and return value ('Updated task data with completion confirmation'). An output schema exists, so the description need not detail the return structure. It lacks edge-case behavior, but for a simple state-change tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains task_id as 'ID of the task to complete,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema type (integer). For a single straightforward parameter, this is adequate and helpful.

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 clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a task as completed' and further details the behavioral effect ('Changes status to COMPLETED and records end time'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as start_task, pause_task, cancel_task, and reopen_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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to mark a task as completed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous given the sibling tool names and the status transition described.

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