Skip to main content
Glama

Set task parent

set_task_parent
Idempotent

Move a task within its project's work breakdown structure — indent it under another task, or pass wbsParentId=null to lift it back to the top level. Requires Administrator or ProjectManager role. WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE. Tasks nest via wbsParentId, and every task carries a read-only wbscode — its dotted outline number within the project ("1", "2.3", "2.3.1") — plus issummary. wbsParentId is NOT a scheduling dependency: a WBS child sits INSIDE its parent's span and in fact defines it, whereas a predecessor runs BEFORE its successor. Predecessors are their own resource — create_task_dependency — and are unrelated to nesting. A task with at least one WBS child is a SUMMARY TASK and owns none of its own schedule: its startDate, endDate, duration, percentComplete and status are all recomputed from its children (dates span the children; progress is their span-weighted average). Writing any of those on a summary returns 422 — change the children instead. wbscode is derived from tree position, so it shifts whenever tasks are reordered or re-parented: display it, never store or match on it. The new parent must be in the same project, must not be a milestone, and must not be one of this task's own descendants (no cycles); nesting is capped at 10 levels, measured against the deepest leaf of the subtree being moved. Indenting a task under a leaf turns that leaf into a summary task, replacing its hand-entered schedule with the roll-up of its new children. The server also renumbers the whole project's display order and outline codes, so re-read the project afterwards rather than assuming other tasks are unchanged. Returns the project's tasks in their new order.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTask id to move
wbsParentIdNoNew WBS parent task id, or null to make this a top-level task

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and idempotency profile, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: cycle prevention, same-project and non-milestone parent constraints, a 10-level nesting cap measured from the deepest leaf, the leaf-to-summary conversion side effect, 422 on writing summary-task fields, and project-wide renumbering of wbscode/display order. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs before mutating a hierarchy.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the null special case, and most sentences carry distinct operational value (summary roll-up, 422 behavior, wbscode instability). It is long, and the density means some details (wbscode formatting examples) could be trimmed, but little is truly redundant for a hierarchy mutation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, failure modes, side effects, and even the return value (the project's tasks in new order). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the null semantics. It does add meaningful parameter constraints that the schema lacks: the new parent must be in the same project, must not be a milestone, must not be a descendant, and depth is capped at 10. That pushes it above the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (move a task) and resource (WBS parent), with the exact two modes: indent under another task or pass wbsParentId=null to lift to top level. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_task_dependency, which handles a different concept.

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 explicit usage conditions (re-parenting within WBS, null to promote) and names the alternative concept to avoid confusing it with (predecessors via create_task_dependency). It also states the role prerequisite (Administrator or ProjectManager), so an agent knows when it will fail for permission reasons.

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