update_tasksFull update (PUT) of a task: every writable field must be supplied, including title. Saving re-normalizes the order of sibling tasks. To change only a few fields, prefer the partial-update tool. Every task carries app_url, a ready-to-use deep link into the ProWoDo web app — give it to the user instead of describing where to click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive, and the description aligns by calling it a full PUT. It adds critical behavioral context: all writable fields must be supplied (including title) and that saving re-normalizes sibling order—a side effect not in annotations. Also mentions app_url in response, adding value beyond annotations.
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 sentences, each packed with useful information: the full-update semantics, the side-effect, and the alternative tool/app_url guidance. No redundancy, no fluff, and the most important detail (all fields required) is front-loaded.
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?
For a complex tool with many parameters and nested objects, the description covers the essential operational context: full replacement, mandatory fields, sibling reordering, alternative tool, and response link guidance. It does not explain response structure (no output schema) or error conditions, but the schema is detailed enough to fill gaps.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate but only mentions 'title' and indirectly 'order' via re-normalization. It does not explain the semantics of most parameters (e.g., reach, effort, impact, status, progress, confidence), leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which itself lacks descriptions for many fields.
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?
The description clearly states it is a 'Full update (PUT) of a task', specifying the verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the partial-update tool by noting 'prefer the partial-update tool' when changing only a few fields, making it a clear and specific purpose.
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?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'every writable field must be supplied' is a condition for use, and 'prefer the partial-update tool' gives a direct alternative. It also adds a practical tip about using app_url for user-facing links, which is useful for invocation.
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.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.