Mark a Grocy task as not completed or reverse its completion status. Omit confirm to preview the change as a dry run; set confirm to true to execute the write.
Mark a task not completed. POST /api/tasks/{taskId}/undo. Omit confirm for a dry-run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected. | |
| task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotent=true, destructive=false and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the two-phase dry-run/confirm protocol and the endpoint, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of saying what state the task reverts to (e.g. whether the completion date is cleared).
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?
Three compact sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the dry-run caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded or repeated from the annotations.
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?
With no output schema and a simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers action, endpoint, and the dry-run safety path adequately. Minor gaps remain around the resulting task state and behavior when the task is not currently completed.
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 50%: confirm is fully documented in the schema (including the true-only constraint and rejection of false/"true"), while task_id has no schema description. The description restates the dry-run meaning of confirm and implies task_id via the {taskId} path, but adds no new semantics for task_id or error conditions.
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 and resource: 'Mark a task not completed', plus the concrete endpoint POST /api/tasks/{taskId}/undo. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling grocy_task_complete by describing the inverse, but never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
The dry-run instruction ('Omit confirm for a dry-run') gives clear operating guidance for one parameter, and the verb implies when to use it. However, there is no explicit statement of when-not to use it, nor any disambiguation from grocy_chore_undo_execution, which is the nearest adjacent undo tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.