Amazing Marvin MCP

by qemqemqem

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_completed_tasks_for_date

Retrieve tasks completed on a specific date. Use API filtering to get a list of finished tasks for any day.

Instructions

Get completed tasks for a specific date using efficient API filtering

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": {
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "get_completed_tasks_for_date"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	Yes	Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (e.g., '2025-06-13')
`debug`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`metadata`	Yes	Metadata about the data itself
`summary`	Yes	Human-readable insights
`debug`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`api_version`	No		current
`response_version`	No		1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. Mentions 'efficient API filtering' but does not state idempotency, rate limits, or what happens for invalid dates. Lacks critical context for a mutation-free tool.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. Could benefit from minor expansion but remains efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given output schema exists and parameter count low, description is somewhat complete. However, lacks details on response structure or common use cases. Adequate but not thorough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (date described, debug not described). Description adds no parameter-specific meaning; 'efficient API filtering' is vague and not parametric. Does not compensate for undocumented debug parameter.

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?

Clearly states action (get), resource (completed tasks), and constraint (for a specific date). Distinguishes from sibling 'get_completed_tasks' which likely returns all completed tasks.

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?

Implies usage for specific date queries but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool guidance. The sibling 'get_completed_tasks' is a natural alternative but not mentioned.

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