Update a project's title / description / project_rules / status. Pass only the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| project_rules | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| inbox | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| instruction | No | ||
| upgrade_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With all annotations set to false, the description adds an important behavioral trait: omitted fields are preserved rather than overwritten with defaults/null. This prevents a misinterpretation of the schema's nullable default values and honestly reflects the update semantics.
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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler: the first clause states the action and target, and the second clause carries the key partial-update caveat. It is as compact as possible while remaining informative.
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?
For a five-parameter update tool with an output schema and no nested objects, this description covers the main invocation caveat and field scope. It leaves status values and project_rules semantics to be inferred from names, but the schema plus output schema cover the remaining mechanical details.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does so by naming the four updatable fields and clarifying that only supplied fields are modified. project_id is not described, but its role as the target identifier is clear from the phrase 'a project's' and the required field in the schema.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Update a project's') and enumerates the exact mutable fields: title, description, project_rules, and status. This clearly distinguishes it from create/delete/get/list project tools and the resource-scoped sibling update_* tools.
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 second sentence, 'Pass only the fields you want to change,' gives explicit guidance for the tool's partial-update usage pattern. It doesn't name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the resource-specific wording makes when to use it unambiguous given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource+action pairs: projects, tasks, skills, user rules, memory, and messaging are all clearly separated. The main ambiguity is update_task versus update_task_state, since update_task can also change state and plan_status, though the descriptions do point to the narrow intended use.
The naming is largely consistent verb_noun snake_case: create_project, update_skill, delete_task, list_projects, get_context, save_turn. Minor deviations include recent_messages lacking a verb, remove_user_rule versus delete_* style, and singular user_rule in mutations versus plural user_rules in listing.
With 27 tools, the server is over the typical well-scoped MCP range, even though it covers several domains. Some consolidation is possible, such as folding update_task_state into update_task and reducing the overlapping retrieval/search tools.
The tool set provides strong lifecycle coverage for projects, tasks, skills, and user rules, plus memory retrieval, agent messaging, and onboarding help. Minor gaps exist, like no standalone get_task or list_tasks and no explicit inbox listing, but get_project and get_context largely cover those needs.
