amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

get_done_items

Read-only

Fetch tasks completed on a given date, including earlier-scheduled items finished that day. Uses lookback and caching to provide reliable completion history.

Instructions

Get tasks completed on a given date. Tasks completed on a given date (doneAt within that day, configured timezone) — regardless of priority and deadline. Built on the UNDOCUMENTED endpoint GET /doneItems?date= (missing from the OpenAPI spec and the wiki; live-tested 2026-08-30, may disappear): it filters on the task's day, not on doneAt. A past day is kept on completion both in the app and via the API (the app sets day = today only on unscheduled and future-dated tasks) — hence the date plus lookback_days earlier are fetched and everything is filtered on doneAt. The response always states its coverage: covers_from (= date − lookback) and days_fetched. On a 429/error the fetch stops: incomplete=true, days_missing lists the days not fetched and warning explains; the date's own completions are always included because it is fetched first. Complete results are cached for 30 minutes (cached=true) — repeated calls then cost no API calls; mark_done inserts its task into the cache, delete_task and unmark_done remove theirs. Completions or deletions made in the app show up only once the cache expires. Not covered: a task with a FUTURE day completed via the API (it sits under its day). Tasks only — completed projects are not listed. Items without doneAt (older data) are excluded and counted in skipped_without_done_at. Sorted by doneAt. Cost: one read call per day (~3.1 s each in the queue).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No	Date YYYY-MM-DD on which tasks were completed (configured timezone); omit for today
`lookback_days`	No	Days before the date for which /doneItems is also fetched, to catch tasks scheduled earlier but completed on the date. Each day = one read call (~3.1 s in the queue). Default 7

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.4.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

This description goes far beyond the basic readOnly hint, disclosing that it relies on an undocumented endpoint that may disappear, that lookback is needed due to day vs. doneAt filtering, that results are cached for 30 minutes, and that incomplete results are flagged with covers_from and days_missing. It also explains cache interactions with mark_done, delete_task, and unmark_done, plus performance costs. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but each sentence adds critical operational detail. Minor redundancy exists in the opening two sentences both stating the 'completed on a given date' conceptaine, but overall the structure is logical: core purpose, endpoint caveat, caching behavior, exclusions, and cost.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers source endpoint risk, date filtering semantics, caching, error handling with incomplete flags, excluded cases, sorting, and cost estimation. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values, and the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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?

Although the schema already documents both parameters, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains why lookback_days exists, that each day corresponds to one read call (~3.1s), and clarifies timezone interpretation. This elevates the semantics well beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get tasks completed on a given date', which clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself with details like 'regardless of priority and deadline' and coverage disclaimers ('Tasks only — completed projects are not listed'), making it distinct from sibling list tools such as get_today_items and get_due_items.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides strong contextual guidance on what the tool covers and its limitations, but it never explicitly names alternative sibling tools or states conditions for choosing this tool over them. The 'Not covered' section implies exclusions, but the absence of direct alternative routing keeps this at a minimum viable level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.