Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tick-mcp

tick-mcp

by KpihX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

complete_task

Completes a task by setting its status to 2. Specify the project and task IDs to update the task in TickTick.

Instructions

Mark a task as completed (status → 2). Uses V1 dedicated endpoint.

[Category: Tasks — Write]  [Auth: V1]
[Related: reopen_task, get_task_detail, get_completed_tasks]

Args:
    project_id: The project containing the task.
    task_id: The task to complete.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "complete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the status change and V1 endpoint, but omits details like permissions, side effects (e.g., on subtasks), idempotency, and error scenarios.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main action, then uses categories, auth, related tools, and parameter descriptions in separate lines. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

While the description covers purpose and parameters, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and side effects. Given no output schema and simple parameters, more context on behavioral outcomes would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter ('project_id: The project containing the task', 'task_id: The task to complete'). These add minimal meaning beyond names but are adequate for simple IDs.

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: 'Mark a task as completed (status → 2)'. It specifies the verb 'complete' and the resource 'task', and distinguishes from siblings by listing related tools like 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 includes a '[Related: reopen_task, get_task_detail, get_completed_tasks]' section, which implicitly guides when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it lacks explicit when-not or context exclusions.

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