amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

mark_done

Idempotent

Complete a task in Amazing Marvin by ID, stopping any running time tracking and safely handling recurring instances. Returns clear errors if the task doesn't exist or is already done.

Instructions

Mark a task as done (via /markDone, with the correct timezone offset). Tasks ONLY: for projects the API responds 400 'Can only mark Tasks done with this API' (verified live 2026-08-19) — projects are completed in the Marvin app (done=true via /doc/update would technically work but skips the app's side effects). Safe for generated instances of recurring tasks too (verified live): the instance ID is deterministic ('YYYY-MM-DD_'), so no duplicates can occur. Error codes (live-tested 2026-08-29): 404 = the task does not exist (deleted/wrong ID — unlike /doc/update, which responds 500); 400 = already marked done (harmless, nothing changes). Stops running time tracking on the task and writes the tracking interval to task.times (receipt also in /tracks; live-tested 2026-09-02 in two runs — on 2026-08-29 times was NOT written, the server behavior has changed; a direct /track STOP still does not write times, see stop_tracking). Pinned task: the original stays open and pinned as documented; the completed copy gets its own ID and can be found via get_done_items. Leaves day untouched; the app sets day = today only on unscheduled and future-dated tasks, a past day is kept there too (app code, 2026-08-30). Completed tasks can be read back with /doc (by ID) and listed with get_done_items.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	Task ID (NOT a project — see description)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: it stops running time tracking, writes the tracking interval to task.times, records receipts in /tracks, keeps the original pinned task open, creates a new ID for the completed copy, and leaves `day` untouched. It even notes a server behavior change with dates. The idempotentHint=true is consistent with the 400-already-done and deterministic recurring-ID notes, so there is 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is front-loaded and clear, but the rest is a dense wall of parentheticals, semicolons, and date-stamped caveats. Every sentence earns its place, yet the structure could be improved with bullets or separation between error handling, recurring tasks, and side effects. It is appropriately sized for the complexity but not concise in form.

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?

For a mutating tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers valid/invalid targets, recurring instances, error semantics, side effects on time tracking, pinned tasks, day-field behavior, and how to read back completed tasks. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate consequences.

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?

The schema already covers the single item_id at 100% with 'Task ID (NOT a project — see description)'. The description adds extra semantic value by specifying the deterministic recurring instance ID format ('YYYY-MM-DD_<recurringTaskId>') and by reinforcing that projects are invalid; this helps an agent construct the correct parameter value beyond the schema itself.

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: 'Mark a task as done (via /markDone, with the correct timezone offset)'. It explicitly narrows the scope to tasks only and distinguishes this from projects by citing the live 400 error, so an agent can separate it from sibling tools like unmark_done or update_task without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: tasks ONLY, projects should be completed in the Marvin app, and /doc/update would technically work but skips side effects. It also covers recurring tasks, error-code meanings, and the tracking side effect, which collectively tell an agent exactly when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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