Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Tasks MCP Server

Google Tasks MCP Server

by odise444
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Google Tasks 완료 취소

tasks_uncomplete
Idempotent

Reopen a completed Google Task and mark it as not done. Provide the task ID to change its status back to incomplete.

Instructions

완료 처리된 할 일을 미완료 상태로 되돌립니다.

Args:

  • id (string): 되돌릴 할 일 ID

  • listId (string): 목록 ID (선택)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "tasks_uncomplete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes미완료로 변경할 할 일 ID
listIdNo목록 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific state change but no extra behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error conditions). With annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence, but it includes an Args section that duplicates the schema. Slight redundancy, but overall concise and well-organized.

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?

For a simple state-change tool with robust annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists, and the idempotent hint covers repeated calls. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on when listId is needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, and the description repeats the same information. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 tool reverts completed tasks to incomplete status, with a specific verb ('되돌립니다') and resource ('할 일'). It is distinct from siblings like tasks_complete and tasks_delete, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 description implies its usage for completed tasks that need to be undone, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The purpose makes the primary use case evident, but no direct guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools