task_complete_toolMark a task as complete using its task ID. Solves the need to update task statuses in Grocy household management directly from an AI agent or CLI.
Mark a task as done.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | The task ID (from tasks_list_tool output). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the outcome ('done') but does not mention idempotency, whether the action can be reversed, side effects, or any state changes beyond the basic status update. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter, achieving clarity without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one documented parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, the lack of behavioral details—such as what happens if the task is already done or which sibling tool reverts the action—leaves gaps that the agent must infer, so it is not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: task_id is documented as 'The task ID (from tasks_list_tool output)'. The description itself adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already explains it well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mark a task as done' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like task_undo_tool or task_delete_tool, but the verb 'complete' is semantically distinct enough that an agent can infer the purpose without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task_undo_tool or task_delete_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or conditions under which this should be called, leaving the agent to rely solely on tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.