update_projectUse this to rename a project, change its color or website url, or archive/unarchive it (archived: true hides it from pickers; its tasks keep the association; archived: false brings it back). Only fields you pass are changed, and the values they replace are kept in the board's journal. Idempotent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| url | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| archived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well beyond the annotations: it defines the partial-update contract ("Only fields you pass are changed"), the side effects of archival on pickers and task associations, how to reverse it (archived: false), and where old values go (the board's journal). The "Idempotent" claim is consistent with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.
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?
Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the use case, then the archive semantics, then the update/journal contract. Every clause carries information; no filler or restatement of the title.
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?
Covers mutation semantics, partial updates, and reversibility for a tool with no output schema and no parameter-level schema docs. It does not state permission/auth requirements or what the call returns, which are the remaining gaps for a write operation.
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 the load. It explains the semantics of name, color, url, and especially the boolean archived (hide from pickers, tasks keep association, false restores) and the partial-update behavior. It omits any note on the required id or the nullability of url, hence not a 5.
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?
States a specific verb (update) plus the exact mutable fields of the resource: rename, color, website url, archive/unarchive. An agent can distinguish it from create_project, list_projects, and update_task without opening any schema.
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?
"Use this to rename a project, change its color or website url, or archive/unarchive it" gives clear triggering conditions for each mode of use. It does not name a sibling alternative or state when NOT to use it (e.g., use create_project for new projects), so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.