Update a task's status to 'done' by providing its unique slug, marking it as completed in your notes.
Marca uma tarefa como concluída (status vira 'done').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| created | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the primary effect (status becomes 'done') but does not mention error handling, reversibility, or side effects. It is minimally transparent but not comprehensive.
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?
A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and effect with no wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly: it does not explain the required 'slug' parameter, nor does it provide usage context or error expectations. Even though an output schema exists, the missing parameter documentation is a significant gap.
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?
The schema provides no description for the 'slug' parameter (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain it either. The description adds zero meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess what 'slug' refers to.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Marca uma tarefa como concluída') and the resulting state ('status vira done'), making it unambiguous what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create/list/read/delete) by indicating a status-update operation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions under which it should be invoked, and no alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.