Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claude Project History MCP Server

Claude Project History MCP Server

by MatthewDegtyar
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Complete Task

cph_task_complete
Idempotent

Mark a task as completed and log actual time spent to improve future estimation accuracy.

Instructions

Mark a task as completed.

State machine: in_progress → completed (rejects if not in_progress)

Args:

  • task_id: The task to complete

  • actual_minutes: Actual time spent. CRITICAL for estimation training. This is the ground truth that improves future predictions. Provide even if the task was blocked for part of the time.

  • completion_notes: What was done, any gotchas, what to know next time (optional)

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": "cph_task_complete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
actual_minutesNoActual minutes spent. Critical — used for estimation accuracy.
completion_notesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds state machine behavior and emphasizes criticality of actual_minutes for estimation training, going beyond annotations that indicate idempotentHint=true with no contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise with front-loaded purpose and state machine; each sentence adds value, though actual_minutes explanation could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Adequately covers inputs and state, but lacks return value description; no output schema, so a brief note on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description provides rich meaning for all three parameters: explains task_id, elaborates actual_minutes with ground truth context, and clarifies completion_notes as optional gotchas.

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 'Mark a task as completed' and details the state machine transition from in_progress to completed, distinguishing it from siblings like cph_task_cancel and cph_task_start.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (task in_progress) and when not (rejects otherwise), but does not mention alternative tools for other states.

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