Marks a Google task as completed using its task list ID and task ID. Use list_tasks and list_task_lists first to obtain the needed identifiers.
Mark a task completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Google task ID; obtain it from list_tasks | |
| task_list_id | Yes | Google task list ID; obtain it from list_task_lists |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not mention reversibility, that reopen_task can undo it, or auth requirements.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough to leave gaps the other dimensions penalize.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the minimum is met. Still, no usage routing, no return behavior, and no mention of interactions with reopen_task/delete_task leaves the definition thin.
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 coverage is 100% with two fully described parameters, so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's own notes.
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 specific verb (mark completed) and resource (task), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_task, delete_task, or reopen_task, which occupy nearby semantic space.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus update_task (which can also alter status) or reopen_task, and no prerequisites called out beyond what the schema already says. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.