Timequip

Update task

update_task

Destructive

Update fields of an existing task. Only provided fields change. Moving status reorders the task to the top of the new column.

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": {
      "taskKey": "<taskKey>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Replacement set of tag names.
`title`	No
`status`	No	New workflow status name.
`content`	No	Description as HTML.
`dueDate`	No	ISO 8601 date, or null to clear.
`taskKey`	Yes	Task key, e.g. "ACME-42".
`assignee`	No	New assignee, "@username" or email.
`priority`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: only provided fields change (partial update) and moving status reorders the task. This exceeds basic annotation coverage.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by key behavioral notes. No wasted words.

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?

Given complexity (8 params, 1 required), annotations (destructive), and presence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects. It could mention required taskKey and potential permissions, but is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds context about partial updates and the side effect of status changes, but does not detail individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb (Update) and resource (existing task), and specifies scope (fields). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like change_task_status, though the scope of field updates is broader.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., change_task_status). Usage is implied but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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

All Timequip 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?