Taskaid

Create or update a daily plan

save_plan

Destructive

Write or edit the user's plan for a day. Send content for the whole plan or patch to change part of it, not both. title can go with either, or alone to rename the plan. Read the user's tasks first for context.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Calendar day to write the plan for, as "YYYY-MM-DD" (e.g. "2026-05-28"). A full ISO datetime is also accepted — only the date component is used. Defaults to today.
`patch`	No	Edits to the plan, applied in order and atomically — if one fails, nothing is written. Prefer this to resending `content`: text you do not send keeps its exact wording.
`title`	No	A few words naming what the day is for. Omit to keep the current title; null clears it.
`content`	No	The whole day's plan, as Markdown — headings, lists, bold, inline code. Send literal newlines and characters, not escape sequences. Replaces any existing plan; to change part of one, send `patch`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`date`	Yes	Calendar date, "YYYY-MM-DD".
`title`	Yes
`content`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / title / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / title / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity constraint and the read-tasks-first prerequisite, but never warns that sending content overwrites the existing plan, which is the main destructive behavior an agent should know about.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the write action and the content-versus-patch choice before the optional title and the workflow hint. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the parameter schema is fully documented. The remaining gap is behavioral: nothing in the description tells the agent that a full-content write discards the prior plan, which matters for a destructive, no-required-parameter tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: content and patch are mutually exclusive, and title alone means rename. That constraint is not expressed anywhere in the property definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Write or edit the user's plan for a day', which distinguishes it from the read-side sibling view_plan by naming the mutation plainly. It does not explicitly name a sibling as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It states the selection rule outright: send content for the whole plan or patch to change part of it, 'not both', and explains that title can accompany either or stand alone to rename. It also supplies a prerequisite workflow hint, telling the agent to read the user's tasks first for context.

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

All Taskaid tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?