Skip to main content
Glama
someposer
by someposer

drop_task

Remove a specific task from OmniFocus by providing its unique task ID. Part of MCP OmniFocus server for streamlined task automation and management.

Instructions

Drop a task in OmniFocus.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe ID of the task to drop

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the drop_task logic by generating and evaluating JavaScript to call task.drop(false) on the specified task in OmniFocus and returns the formatted task details.
    def drop_task(task_id: str) -> dict[str, str]:
        """Complete a task in OmniFocus.
    
        Args:
            task_id: The ID of the task to complete.
    
        Returns:
            A dictionary containing the dropped task's details.
        """
        script = Template(
            dedent("""
        ${__common_functions__}
                   
        (() => {
            let task = Task.byIdentifier("${task_id}");
            if (!task) {
                throw "Could not find task: " + task_id.toString();
            }
            
            task.drop(false);
            return formatTask(task);
        })();
        """)
        )
    
        return evaluate_javascript(script.substitute(__common_functions__=__common_functions__, task_id=task_id))
  • MCP tool registration for 'drop_task', including input schema (Annotated task_id) and docstring, which delegates execution to the omnifocus.drop_task function.
    @mcp.tool
    def drop_task(task_id: Annotated[str, Field(description="The ID of the task to drop")]) -> dict[str, str]:
        """Drop a task in OmniFocus."""
        return omnifocus.drop_task(task_id)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't clarify if dropping is destructive (e.g., deletes the task), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., no return value or confirmation). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness for clarity.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'drop' entails behaviorally, potential impacts, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'task_id' documented in the schema as 'The ID of the task to drop'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Drop a task in OmniFocus' clearly states the action (drop) and resource (task), but it's vague about what 'drop' means operationally compared to siblings like 'complete_task' or 'activate_task'. It distinguishes by name but not by specific behavior, leaving ambiguity about whether this is deletion, cancellation, or status change.

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 'complete_task' or 'update_task'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for dropping tasks, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/someposer/mcp-omnifocus'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server