Enhanced Todoist MCP Server Extended

todoist_reopen_task

Reopen completed Todoist tasks by ID to restore them to active status for continued tracking and management.

Instructions

Reopen a completed task by its ID

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "todoist_reopen_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`taskId`	Yes	The ID of the completed task to reopen

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 12, 2025

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but lacks behavioral details like permission requirements, whether it's reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the task isn't completed. This is a mutation tool with no safety or operational context disclosed.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the action and key constraint ('completed task'). It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, making it adequate but with clear gaps given the complexity of a write operation.

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 parameter 'taskId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond implying it's for a completed task, which is already covered by the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Reopen') and resource ('a completed task'), specifying it acts on completed tasks by ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'todoist_complete_task' by indicating opposite action, though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'completed task'—it should be used when a task is completed and needs reopening. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided, such as using 'todoist_update_task' for other modifications or noting it's only for completed tasks.

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