Google Workspace MCP

tasks_complete

Complete a Google Task by specifying its task list and task ID. Update your Workspace Tasks status to done, helping you track finished work.

Instructions

Mark a task done.

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": {
      "tasklist": "<tasklist>",
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "tasks_complete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes
`tasklist`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already imply. It does not disclose whether completion is reversible, what fields are modified, or what happens to the task after completion. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though brevity comes at the cost of the semantic depth penalized in other dimensions.

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?

For a mutating tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this description is too sparse to be considered complete. It omits parameter format, behavioral effects, and any conditional or edge-case information an agent would need to invoke it reliably.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has two required string parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of what 'task' and 'tasklist' mean, whether they expect IDs or names, or how they relate. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a concrete action—'Mark a task done'—with a clear resource and outcome. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like tasks_create and tasks_list, though it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as the task and tasklist needing to already exist. The intended usage is only implicit from the verb 'mark' and the resource 'task'.

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