update_task
Update a task's status, priority, or fields
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| dueDate | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| description | No |
Mailcannon
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'update.' It does not mention partial-update semantics, whether non-specified fields are preserved, error behavior for invalid ids, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a 6-parameter tool. Being short is positive, but it sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and sparse description, the tool is not fully contextualized. It lacks information about response format, validation rules, and how it interacts with other task-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions status and priority, ignoring title, dueDate, and description. It adds little beyond the schema's enums and does not clarify the required id parameter or value formats.
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 identifies the action ('update') and resource ('task'), and lists representative fields (status, priority). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_task and delete_task, though the phrase 'or fields' is somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It is implied that this tool is for modifying an existing task, as opposed to create_task or delete_task. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use it over alternatives, prerequisites, or any exclusions.
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.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but a few pairs (check_email_spam_score vs check_step_spam_score, get_deliverability vs check_domain_deliverability) have overlapping concerns. However, descriptions clarify the differences, so an agent can distinguish them with careful reading.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase snake_case. The use of add vs create is a minor style variation but does not create confusion.
Tool Count2/5
At 34 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 tool range and even the 16-25 heavy range. While the broad functionality justifies many tools, the count is likely to make tool selection more difficult for an agent.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full campaign lifecycle including creation, scheduling, processing, and deliverability tracking, plus contact and provider management. Notable gaps include no update_contact or get_campaign by ID, but these are workarounds via list operations.