Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tick-mcp

tick-mcp

by KpihX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

reopen_task

Reopen a completed task to set its status back to active, allowing work to resume.

Instructions

Reopen a completed task (status → 0).

[Category: Tasks — Write]  [Auth: V1]
[Related: complete_task, update_task]

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

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": "reopen_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it's a write operation (Category: Tasks — Write) and that it sets status to 0. Lacks details on error conditions, side effects, or prerequisites like task completion status.

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?

Extremely concise: one-line purpose, metadata line, then clean arg list. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple status reset tool, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and related tools. No output schema needed. Slightly misses explaining behavior if task is not completed, but overall sufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. Description adds brief but clear explanations for both parameters ('The project containing the task', 'The task to reopen'), providing meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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?

Clearly states 'Reopen a completed task (status → 0)' with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_task' and 'update_task' by specifying it targets completed tasks.

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?

Mentions related tools (complete_task, update_task) and includes category info, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus when not to use, or provide conditions for use.

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