Well

Update activity

well_update_activity

Change the day or duration_seconds of one manually logged work activity. Use activity_id from well_query_records on activities. The activity must have one resolved participant. Source-owned, approved and billed values keep their existing locks. This changes logged work without moving a calendar meeting.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`day`	No	The activity day, YYYY-MM-DD.
`activity_id`	Yes
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
`workspace_scope`	No	Restrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.
`duration_seconds`	No	The updated time in whole seconds.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`activity`	No
`reply_lines`	No
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`near_candidates`	No
`newly_connected`	No	Tools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.
`near_candidates_truncated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / code
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "company_id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "company_id",
+      "name"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates_truncated
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / reply_lines

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds substantive context beyond that: source-owned, approved and billed values 'keep their existing locks', and the one-resolved-participant precondition — real constraints an agent would otherwise hit as errors.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope, then prerequisites, then the calendar distinction. No filler, though the lock sentence is terse enough that an agent may need to infer what 'keep their existing locks' means for its edit.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what remains: mutability scope, id source, precondition, and side-effect boundary versus calendar events. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 86%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning on top: it names day and duration_seconds as the only mutable fields, telling the agent that activity_id is a locator and the rest are context/plumbing. No format detail beyond the schema, which already documents YYYY-MM-DD.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change the day or duration_seconds of one manually logged work activity') and bounds scope to manually logged activities only. It also distinguishes itself from the calendar sibling by noting it 'changes logged work without moving a calendar meeting', so an agent can separate it from well_update_calendar_event and well_update_activity_participant.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: 'Use activity_id from well_query_records on activities' and 'The activity must have one resolved participant', which tells the agent what must be true before calling. It also states an explicit exclusion (does not move a calendar meeting) but never names well_update_activity_participant for participant edits, leaving that routing to inference.

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

All Well 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?