haus

update_recurring_task

Update a recurring task. Title/notes changes patch existing instances; frequency/date changes regenerate future instances.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The recurring task's ID, as returned by create_recurring_task or list_recurring_tasks.
`notes`	No	New notes for the template, copied to existing uncompleted generated instances. Omit to leave unchanged.
`title`	No	New title for the template. Existing uncompleted generated instances are updated to match; completed ones keep their original title. Omit to leave unchanged.
`endDate`	No	New end date for the schedule (inclusive), in YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit to leave unchanged, or send an empty string for an open-ended schedule. Changing this regenerates future uncompleted instances.
`startDate`	No	New start date for the schedule, in YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit to leave unchanged, or send an empty string to clear it. Changing this regenerates future uncompleted instances.
`cronExpression`	No	New recurrence frequency expression in the format 'N Unit', e.g. '2 Week' for every two weeks. Unit must be exactly Day, Week, Month, or Year (case-sensitive). Despite the parameter name, this is not cron syntax. Changing this deletes uncompleted future instances and regenerates them from the new schedule.
`maxOccurrences`	No	New maximum total number of instances to generate. Changing this regenerates future uncompleted instances.
`preparationDays`	No	Number of days before each occurrence's due date to set that instance's preparation date. Only affects instances generated after this change; existing uncompleted instances keep their original preparation date unless a frequency, start date, end date, or max-occurrences change also triggers regeneration.
`assigneeRotation`	No	New ordered list of household member IDs to round-robin through, replacing the existing rotation entirely. Applies to instances generated after this change; already-created instances are unaffected. Omit to leave the rotation unchanged.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that the tool mutates (readOnlyHint=false) and is not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context about patching vs. regenerating instances, which is not visible in the annotations alone. While it doesn't mention deletion explicitly, the schema covers that detail, and the description provides enough transparency for safe invocation.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and avoids restating parameter details. Every word contributes meaningful behavioral context without redundancy.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema (9 parameters, nuanced per-field effects) and an output schema. The description provides a solid high-level summary that orients the agent, while the schema handles detailed semantics. It could mention explicit return behavior or exclusions, but for selection purposes it is complete enough.

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?

The input schema covers all 9 parameters with 100% coverage and detailed descriptions. The description's reference to title/notes vs. frequency/date groups parameters conceptually but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Update a recurring task') and immediately adds a critical scoping detail: title/notes changes patch existing instances while frequency/date changes regenerate future instances. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_task, create_recurring_task, and update_recurring_calendar_event.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate—when modifying a recurring task—and its second sentence explains the differential effects of field types. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as update_task for one-off tasks or update_recurring_calendar_event for calendar events, so it lacks explicit exclusions or when-not guidance.

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

All haus 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?