complete_taskMarks a Vikunja task as done by its id, or reopens it by passing done=false. Use it to close tasks or undo completion through the Vikunja API.
Mark a task as done (or reopen it with done=false).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Task id | |
| done | No | false to reopen a completed task |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the bidirectional behavior (done=false reopens), but says nothing about side effects (e.g. timestamps), idempotency, what happens if the task is already in the target state, or required permissions for a mutation.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the primary action and folds the inverse case into a parenthetical. No wasted words.
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 toggle tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It falls short only on edge-case behavior and permissions, which a mutation tool would ideally mention, but the core is sufficient.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both id and done, including the 'false to reopen' semantics. The description's parenthetical essentially restates the schema's own done description, adding no new format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Mark a task as done') and even covers the inverse operation ('reopen it with done=false'), so the agent knows both directions of the toggle. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling update_task, which an agent could plausibly reach for to change task state.
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 prefer this over update_task, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only usage-adjacent signal is the parenthetical reopen case, which is about the parameter, not about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.