Skip to main content
Glama

ticktick_complete_task

Mark a TickTick task as completed by ID and record it as processed, so it won't reappear in the unprocessed completions queue.

Instructions

Mark a task as completed.

Completing a task here also records it as processed, so it does not come back from ticktick_get_unprocessed_completions. That queue is for completions made elsewhere, where a note may be waiting to be read. There is no need to call ticktick_mark_completion_processed afterwards.

Args: task_id (str): The task's full ID.

Returns: JSON object containing the refetched task (status=2 on success). _verification_warnings is attached if the refetch shows the task is still open. completion_recorded reports whether the local record was written. Present only when a non-recurring task completed; absent wherever nothing was recorded, which is every recurring completion and outcome: "uncertain". The task is complete either way. Missing task: {"status": "not_found", "error": "..."}. Other failures: {"error": "...", "status": "error"}.

Limitations: - Once completed, the content field becomes immutable. Update content with resolution notes BEFORE calling this tool. - A recurring task's completion is never recorded, whatever the outcome: completing one files the completed instance under an id this tool never sees. That instance reaches the unprocessed queue. Do not mark the series id processed by hand instead; it is not the id the queue is showing.

Example: ticktick_complete_task(task_id="60ca9dbc8f08516d9dd56324")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects (recording as processed), recurring-task completion never being recorded, content immutability after completion, verification warnings, and the exact semantics of completion_recorded and error responses.

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 long but every section earns its place: a one-sentence summary, side-effect and routing guidance, parameter definition, detailed return semantics, critical limitations, and a concrete example. The structure with Args, Returns, Limitations, and Example makes the information easy to scan.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and a single parameter, the description is unusually complete. It covers when to use the tool, what side effects occur, edge cases around recurring tasks, immutability caveats, return shapes for success and failure, and includes an example call.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds the meaningful detail that task_id is the task's full ID, and the example supplies a concrete value. It could go further by explaining how to find the full ID or distinguishing it from a series ID, but for a single simple parameter this is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: "Mark a task as completed." It then distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining that completing here also records the task as processed, so it does not appear in ticktick_get_unprocessed_completions and does not require ticktick_mark_completion_processed.

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 explicitly addresses when to use this tool versus alternatives: it notes that the unprocessed-completions queue is for completions made elsewhere, and states there is no need to call ticktick_mark_completion_processed afterwards. The Limitations section also instructs updating content before completing, implying the alternative of updating first.

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