Timix.AI

update_task

Update an existing task in your organization. Only the fields you provide are changed (PATCH semantics). You can rename the task, update its description, change its status, and set per-type hour limits. Discover ids with find_billing_work - never ask the user for an id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New task name.
`status`	No	Task status. One of: Active, Inactive, Completed.
`task_id`	Yes	Id of the task to update (required). Must be a task in your organization.
`description`	No	Task description.
`tm_hour_limit`	No	T&M (Time & Materials) hour limit for this task (0 = unlimited).
`fix_hour_limit`	No	Fixed-price hour limit for this task (0 = unlimited).
`ovh_hour_limit`	No	Overhead hour limit for this task (0 = unlimited).
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains PATCH semantics and lists updatable fields, which is adequate for a non-destructive update. However, it does not mention permissions, error cases, or idempotency key behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two sentences, both essential: the first defines the core action, the second adds critical PATCH semantics and ID handling guidance. No redundant information.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers PATCH behavior, updatable fields, and ID discovery. It is sufficient for the agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits mention of return values or error handling.

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%, so each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds overarching context (PATCH, field categories) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter understanding. 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 explicitly states 'Update an existing task', identifies the resource (task), and specifies PATCH semantics. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and move_task by focusing on updating fields. The guidance to use find_billing_work for IDs further clarifies its role.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains PATCH behavior ('Only the fields you provide are changed') and advises against asking users for IDs, directing to find_billing_work instead. It implies usage for updates only, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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

All Timix.AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?