Mark a Google Task as completed by exact title, or undo completion by setting undo=true.
Mark a Google Task as completed (or not completed again with undo=true).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| list | No | Task list name (default the list the app shows). | |
| undo | No | Mark a completed task as not completed. | |
| title | Yes | Exact task title. | |
| occurrence | No | Which one when several tasks have this title (0 = first). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 discloses that undo=true marks a completed task as not completed, which is useful, but it does not describe permission requirements, side effects, missing-task behavior, or what confirmation is returned.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the primary action first and the undo variant second.
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?
The schema is fully described and there is no output schema, so much of the calling detail is covered. Still, as a mutation tool with no annotations, the description does not address permissions, result behavior, or what happens when no matching task title exists.
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 all four parameters are already documented. The description adds the semantic of undo=true, but that is also present in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does most of the parameter explanation.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: mark a Google Task as completed. It also clarifies the inverse operation with undo=true, making the core action clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling calendar_task_update, which likely handles other task edits.
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 description implies when to use the tool by naming the completion and undo scenarios. It does not state when to prefer calendar_task_update for other changes, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.