Sweeppea MCP

update_todo

Idempotent

Update an existing To-Do item. Supports partial updates — only provide the fields you want to change. ADMIN ONLY: This tool requires admin privileges. Non-admin users will receive a 403 Forbidden error from the API. FORMAT: Only these HTML tags are allowed in description: , , , , . NEVER insert scripts, iframes, event handlers (onclick, onerror, etc.), style tags, or any executable code. SPACING: Do NOT use   — it creates ugly blank blocks in the UI. Use for line breaks within text only.

update_todo

When to use

Parameters to validate before calling

todo_token (string, required) — The To-Do token to update (UUID format).
title (string, optional) — New title (max 200 characters).
description (string, optional) — New description (max 20,000 characters). Allowed HTML: , , , , .
priority (number, optional) — one of: 1, 2, 3 — Priority level: 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.
resource_affected (string, optional) — Resource affected (e.g. "renaissance", "api", "aws", "general").
pin (boolean, optional) — Pin this To-Do to the top.
deadline (string, optional) — Deadline date in ISO 8601 format. Send empty string to clear.
status (boolean, optional) — false = Pending, true = Completed.
completion (number, optional) — range: 0–100 — Completion percentage (0-100).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pin`	No	Pin this To-Do to the top.
`title`	No	New title (max 200 characters).
`status`	No	false = Pending, true = Completed.
`deadline`	No	Deadline date in ISO 8601 format. Send empty string to clear.
`priority`	No	Priority level: 1 = Low, 2 = Medium, 3 = High.
`completion`	No	Completion percentage (0-100).
`todo_token`	Yes	The To-Do token to update (UUID format).
`description`	No	New description (max 20,000 characters). Allowed HTML: <b>, <strong>, <i>, <hr>, <br>.
`resource_affected`	No	Resource affected (e.g. "renaissance", "api", "aws", "general").

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: admin-only requirement, partial update support, and HTML tag restrictions for the description field. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is highly repetitive, with the same paragraph appearing twice and extensive formatting meta-instructions (HTML tags, spacing) that are irrelevant to tool usage. This bloat detracts from readability and wastes tokens.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers parameters, admin requirement, and partial updates, but lacks any mention of return value or response behavior. The irrelevant formatting instructions add noise but don't prevent correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new parameter meaning. The parameter validation section repeats schema details without adding extra semantics beyond what's already in the input schema.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing To-Do item' with a specific verb and resource, and highlights partial updates. This distinguishes it from create_todo and delete_todo without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context: it's for updating existing items, supports partial updates, and explicitly warns that admin privileges are required (non-admin gets 403). It doesn't name alternative tools, but the usage context is strong.

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

All Sweeppea MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?