Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dida365 MCP Server

Dida365 MCP Server

by Martinqi826
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

complete_task

Mark a Dida365 task as completed by providing its task ID and project ID.

Instructions

将指定任务标记为已完成。需要提供 task_id 和 project_id。

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes任务ID
project_idYes项目ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., idempotency, triggers, reversibility) or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second lists required parameters.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 required params and no output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it fails to mention what the tool returns or any side effects, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the need for task_id and project_id.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('mark task as completed') and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling 'update_task', which could also change status, so it loses the top score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description only mentions the required parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task' or 'delete_task'. There is no 'when-not' or context for usage.

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