Amazing Marvin MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mark_task_done

Marks a specific task as completed in Amazing Marvin by providing the task ID. Optionally includes a timezone offset for accuracy.

Instructions

Mark a task as completed in Amazing Marvin.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "mark_task_done"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`item_id`	Yes	Task ID to mark as done
`timezone_offset`	No	Timezone offset in minutes from UTC (e.g., -480 for PST)
`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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. The minimal description provides no transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant words. It earns top marks for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, behavior nuances, or parameter roles. A more complete description would improve agent understanding.

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 67% (two of three parameters described). The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, missing an opportunity to explain the timezone_offset or debug parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Mark a task as completed') and the application ('Amazing Marvin'), providing a clear purpose. However, it does not distinguish between marking a single task and batch marking (sibling batch_mark_done), which would earn a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like batch_mark_done, or context such as prerequisites. The description lacks usage context entirely.

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