Update fields of an existing task. Only provided fields will be modified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| endDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| progress | No | ||
| startDate | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| assigneeId | No | null to unassign | |
| description | 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?
The description discloses the key behavior that only provided fields are modified, which is valuable. However, with no annotations, it omits other important behavioral details such as error handling when the task does not exist, whether the updated task is returned, or any permission requirements. The burden is only partially met.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. It is concise and easy to parse.
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 tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers partial update but does not explain return values, failure modes, or when to prefer set_task_progress, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.
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 low at 33%, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It only generically says 'fields' without enumerating or clarifying them, leaving many parameters undocumented beyond 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 clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing task'), and explicitly notes the partial-update behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_task and delete_task.
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 use when an existing task needs modification, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized sibling set_task_progress, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is clear but not fully scoped.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, such as create_task vs update_task vs set_task_progress. Even the two task-modifying tools have clearly separated concerns: one updates arbitrary fields, the other specifically updates progress with auto-derived status.
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, delete_, get_, add_, set_, update_). The only compound verb, reschedule_and_propagate, still fits the pattern and reads predictably.
15 tools is within the well-scoped 3-15 range, and each tool covers a meaningful operation for a project management domain. No redundant or trivial tools are present.
Tasks have full CRUD plus progress and dependency management, but milestones lack update/delete operations, and dependencies only support addition (no removal). These are notable gaps that may require workarounds in some workflows.
