Housewarden

Complete chore

complete_chore

Idempotent

Mark a chore as complete and automatically schedule its next occurrence when it repeats. Resolve recurring chore tracking with one action.

Instructions

Marks a chore done and, if it repeats, schedules the next one. Needs the chore.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chore`	Yes	The chore's title or id.
`member`	No	Who is asking, if known: a member id or name. Used for per-member policies and the audit trail.
`dry_run`	No	When true, return the preview only. Nothing is written and nothing is queued.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-chosen key. Repeating a call with the same key returns the original outcome instead of acting twice.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the side effect of scheduling the next occurrence for repeating chores, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose audit-trail behavior, but that gap is minor.

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 one concise sentence with the primary action front-loaded. The trailing 'Needs the chore' is slightly cryptic but does not bloat the text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering idempotency, the description supplies enough behavioral context for a simple mutation tool. It does not describe dry_run or member parameters, but those are documented in the schema.

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?

All four parameters have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description is not required to explain them. The only addition is 'Needs the chore', which reinforces the required parameter but adds no new semantic meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Marks a chore done') on a clear resource, and adds the repeating-chore scheduling behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_chore or assign_chore without needing to open their schemas.

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 behavior implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. 'Needs the chore' hints at a prerequisite but does not provide routing context.

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