Skip to main content
Glama

Yellowhead Digital agent door

Update an action item

update_action_item
Destructive

Requests a change to one action item: its status (queued, in_progress, completed or dismissed), assignee, due date or resolution notes. Available only on a connection an account admin set up in the Yellowhead app and allowed to make this request; a connection made through an assistant's sign-in cannot make it, on any plan. By default the change is held: the result is {status: 'pending_approval', approval_id}, nothing changes until an account admin approves it in the Yellowhead app, and get_approval_status reports the outcome. Only a connection the account has allowed to apply changes directly, and that proves its signing key on each request, applies it at once. Status changes follow the same rules as the app: suggested and verified are set by Yellowhead (verified only when a later Diagnostic sees the fix from outside), and confirmed is a second person's sign-off in the app, so none of the three can be set here. Marking an item completed records that the work was done; it does not verify it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe action item to update.
statusNo
due_dateNoCalendar date (YYYY-MM-DD) or null to clear.
assigned_toNoWho the item is assigned to: a name or email kept as a label, the user id of someone who can work on the item (a member of its organization or a client member of its workspace), or null to clear.
resolution_notesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing the default pending-approval path, the exact result shape {status: 'pending_approval', approval_id}, the admin approval step in the app, and the narrow condition under which changes apply immediately (allowed connection plus signing-key proof per request). It also clarifies domain rules the agent could not infer: suggested/verified/confirmed are not settable here, and completed records work done without verifying it. Consistent with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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-loads the purpose, then layers preconditions, approval behavior, and domain rules in a logical order with no filler. It is dense and slightly repetitive around connection eligibility, but each sentence carries operational information an agent needs before invoking.

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?

A high-stakes mutation tool with no output schema, yet the description supplies the return shape, the approval lifecycle, the fallback lookup path, and the domain constraints on status values. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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?

With 60% schema coverage, the description adds substantial meaning for status by naming the four settable values and, more importantly, the three values that cannot be set and why. It also clarifies that marking completed does not verify. resolution_notes is only named, with no semantics beyond the schema's maxLength, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource — "Requests a change to one action item" — and enumerates exactly which fields can change (status, assignee, due date, resolution notes). It is trivially distinguishable from read siblings like get_action_item and list_action_items, and from add_action_item_comment.

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?

Establishes clear preconditions for use: the connection must be admin-created in the Yellowhead app, and assistant-sign-in connections cannot use it on any plan. It also routes the agent to get_approval_status for the outcome. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with read or comment siblings, but the gating conditions are unambiguous.

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