mcp-server

update_task

Change one task in the connected LoopGantt ACCOUNT (requires a LoopGantt API key). Pass the taskId from list_tasks and only the fields to change. To mark a task done use complete_task — LoopGantt couples status and progress, and complete_task says exactly that. Set agentLabel to claim a task for a bot (null releases it); assigneeId is for a real person.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`status`	No	Workflow stage id - use one of the project's stage ids (list_projects shows each project's stages; any other value is stored as sent, shown in the board's first column, and warned about), e.g. not_started, in_progress, on_hold, completed, or todo, in_progress, blocked, waiting_approval, done on an agent board. Prefer complete_task for 'done'.
`taskId`	Yes	Task id from list_tasks
`deadline`	No	Finish-by date YYYY-MM-DD (a marker, not a constraint)
`priority`	No
`progress`	No	Percent complete
`agentLabel`	No	The bot (agent) that owns this task, e.g. "qa-bot" (1-64 characters) - so a team of agents can split one board. Use your own stable name. assigneeId is for a real PERSON; leave it alone unless a human should own the task.
`assigneeId`	No	Assign to this user id (the project owner or an accepted member), or null to unassign
`plannedEnd`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`description`	No
`isMilestone`	No
`durationDays`	No	Working days; 0 makes it a milestone
`plannedStart`	No	YYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it discloses the API-key/account requirement, the partial-update contract (only send fields to change), and the null-releases-it behavior of agentLabel. It stops short of stating permission requirements for updates, what happens on an unknown taskId, or what the call returns.

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?

Four tight sentences with the account requirement, the core calling pattern, and the two sibling/field disambiguations front-loaded. There is no filler and no repetition of schema text beyond the single routing sentence that needs it.

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?

For a 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguities: partial update semantics, status/progress coupling, and agent vs human assignment. Gaps remain around return value, failure modes on invalid ids, and how durationDays/isMilestone relate, some of which the schema only partially covers.

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?

At 69% schema coverage the schema already documents many fields, and the description adds real meaning on the ambiguous ones: agentLabel ownership semantics and null release, the bot-vs-human split against assigneeId, and pointing taskId at list_tasks. It duplicates rather than extends the status guidance already in the schema, and says nothing about name, description, priority values, or deadline/planned date interplay.

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?

"Change one task" names a specific verb (partial update) and resource, and the sentence immediately constrains the payload to taskId plus the fields to change. It explicitly distinguishes itself from complete_task, so an agent can pick it over that sibling without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use complete_task to mark a task done, with the reason (LoopGantt couples status and progress). It also resolves the agentLabel vs assigneeId choice ("assigneeId is for a real person"), so both ambiguous cases in this tool have a stated when-to-use.

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

All mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?