Skip to main content
Glama

update_ctlsurf_task_item

Update a ctlsurf_task item. Use to add progress notes, mark complete, or reopen with feedback.

Examples:

  • Add progress note: update_ctlsurf_task_item(block_id, item_id, notes=["Implemented login endpoint"])

  • Mark complete with structured completion (REQUIRED when done=true): update_ctlsurf_task_item( block_id="...", item_id="...", done=true, completion={ "summary": "Implemented user authentication with JWT", "assumptions": ["Database schema already supports user sessions"], "attempted_but_failed": ["Tried OAuth but API rate limited"], "simplified_or_skipped": [] } )

  • Reopen a completed task with feedback: update_ctlsurf_task_item( block_id="...", item_id="...", done=false, reopen_feedback="Please implement the rate limiting properly, don't skip it" )

  • Attach skill: update_ctlsurf_task_item(block_id, item_id, skill_id="")

IMPORTANT: When marking done=true, the completion object is REQUIRED with structured documentation of what was done, assumptions made, and any simplifications.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doneNoSet to true to mark complete (requires completion object), or false to reopen
textNoUpdate the task description
notesNoNotes about the task (for progress updates, not completion)
item_idYesThe ID of the task item (from get_pending_agent_tasks)
block_idYesThe UUID of the ctlsurf_task block
skill_idNoSkill/playbook ID to attach (use null to remove)
completionNoREQUIRED when done=true. Structured completion data documenting what was done.
reopen_feedbackNoFeedback when reopening a completed task (e.g., 'Don't skip the rate limiting')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a crucial non-obvious invariant: done=true REQUIRES the structured completion object. It also clarifies reopen_feedback usage, skill attachment, and the difference between notes and completion. It stops short of describing permissions or persistence details, but the core side effects and constraints are visible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average, partly due to code examples, but every example earns its place by showing real call patterns and the completion schema. The summary line is front-loaded and the IMPORTANT note reinforces the critical constraint. Slightly verbose, but appropriately structured for the tool's complexity.

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, a nested completion object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all major operation modes and constraints well. It explains when completion is required, how to reopen tasks, and how to attach skills. Missing return/error details would be nice, but they are not necessary for correct invocation.

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 is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it wires done=true to the completion object, shows notes as progress-only, demonstrates valid parameter combinations with examples, and highlights skill_id attach behavior. It does not add much for block_id/item_id, but the schema already sources them.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update a ctlsurf_task item') and enumerates the concrete operation modes: add progress notes, mark complete, reopen with feedback, and attach a skill. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_block or update_checklist_item.

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 explicitly says 'Use to add progress notes, mark complete, or reopen with feedback' and gives callable examples for each mode. It does not explicitly list exclusions or direct alternatives, but for this dedicated task-item tool the provided use cases are clear enough to guide selection.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources