Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
omnifocus-mcp

omnifocus-mcp

by torsday
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

project_complete_describe

Preview project completion changes without applying them. Inspect planned actions before executing with the write tool.

Instructions

Preview what project_complete would do without making any changes. Do NOT use to actually complete a project — use project_complete instead. Returns { description, plannedChanges } describing the completion that would occur. No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus. Example: dry-run companion — pass the same args you would to the write tool, inspect plannedChanges, then call the write tool once approved.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "project_complete_describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPersistent ID of the project to complete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'No side effects: read-only by contract — never mutates OmniFocus'. This fully discloses behavioral traits. No contradiction.

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?

Description is concisely written in a few sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes essential usage info and example without any fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, its return value, its read-only nature, and how to use it in conjunction with project_complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the only parameter (id). Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool previews what project_complete would do without changes. It uses a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('project completion'), and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling project_complete.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use (dry-run companion) and when not to (do not use to actually complete). Names alternative tool (project_complete) and provides usage pattern: pass same args, inspect plannedChanges, then call write tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools