Mark a task as completed by providing its ID, updating its status in the task manager.
Mark a task as completed
Args:
task_id: ID of the task to complete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether completion is reversible, whether it triggers side effects (notifications, timestamps), what happens if the task is already completed, or what error conditions exist.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, though the 'Args:' formatting is a code-doc artifact rather than conversational prose. No wasted words.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no side-effect disclosure. The description should at least describe state transitions or idempotency for an agent to call it safely.
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 0%, but there is only one parameter with an obvious name (task_id). The description restates that it's the ID of the task to complete, which is marginally helpful but adds little beyond the schema's property name. With a single obvious param, baseline is near 3.
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?
States a clear verb (mark as completed) and resource (task), distinguishing it from siblings like update_task or delete_task. Slightly weaker than a 5 because 'completed' vs 'done' state terminology isn't elaborated.
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 on when to use this versus update_task, which could presumably also change status. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.