Skip to main content
Glama

complete_story

Destructive

Mark a story as done by validating acceptance criteria, appending a completion summary, and moving it from the backlog in one atomic operation.

Instructions

Mark a story done and append a mandatory completion summary note in one atomic call. Validates acceptance criteria before completing: if the AC section has not been set (contains only the placeholder), completion is blocked — call set_acceptance_criteria first. IMPORTANT: if a criterion is actually done, mark it [x] in the story file via set_acceptance_criteria BEFORE calling this tool — do not leave it unchecked. If criteria remain unchecked (genuinely not done), incomplete_items is required with one explanation per unchecked item explaining WHY it was not completed (e.g. deferred, out of scope). incomplete_items is for unfinished work only — never use it to confirm completed work. On success, removes the story from backlog.md and returns {story_id, completed_at, backlog_removed}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
incomplete_itemsNoRequired when the story has unchecked (genuinely unfinished) acceptance criteria. Each string must explain WHY that criterion was not met (e.g. 'Deferred to STORY-010 — rarity system not yet designed'). One entry per unchecked item, in the order they appear. DO NOT use this field to confirm items that are done — if a criterion is done, tick it [x] via set_acceptance_criteria first, then retry. Never prefix entries with 'Done:' — if it is done, it should not appear here at all.
story_idYesStory ID to complete, e.g. STORY-047
summaryYesCompletion summary describing what was done. Appended as a timestamped note to the story file.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details validation logic (blocking if AC section has placeholder), prerequisites (calling set_acceptance_criteria first), atomic operation, and post-success effects (removes from backlog.md). Annotations cover hints like destructiveHint=true, but the description enriches this with specific workflow constraints and outcomes, enhancing agent understanding without contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential rules and caveats in a logical flow. Every sentence adds value, such as validation steps, parameter usage rules, and success outcomes, with no redundant or vague statements. It efficiently balances detail with brevity.

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 (destructive, non-idempotent, with validation logic), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter context, and output details (returns {story_id, completed_at, backlog_removed}). Without an output schema, it adequately explains return values, and annotations complement safety aspects, making it well-rounded for agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies the purpose of incomplete_items (for unfinished work only, not for confirming done items) and ties parameters to workflow steps (e.g., summary is appended as a timestamped note). This goes beyond schema details, providing practical usage semantics, though not exhaustive on all param nuances.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Mark a story done and append a mandatory completion summary note in one atomic call') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing its role in finalizing stories versus tools like set_story_status or add_story_note. It explicitly mentions validation of acceptance criteria, which differentiates it from simpler status updates.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as calling set_acceptance_criteria first if criteria are not set or need marking as done, and when not to use it (e.g., if criteria are unchecked but genuinely incomplete, requiring incomplete_items). It names specific sibling tools (set_acceptance_criteria) for prerequisite actions, offering clear alternatives and exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/corbym/backlog-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server