OTP

Edit or reassign a to-do

update_todo

Destructive

Change a to-do: its title, description, due date or priority, who it is on, or its team. assign_to replaces the people on it (the first is the primary owner); each is a name or a list_people id. Use it to hand a to-do to the person who owns it. Only the fields you pass change.

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": {
      "todo_id": "<todo_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team`	No	Move it to a team, by name or id; "none" makes it a personal to-do.
`title`	No
`due_at`	No	ISO 8601 datetime, or null to clear the date.
`todo_id`	Yes
`priority`	No
`assign_to`	No	Who it should be on, by name or id. Replaces the current set.
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description usefully qualifies that risk by stating 'Only the fields you pass change' and by disclosing that assign_to REPLACES the current people set rather than adding to it. It omits whether reassignment notifies the new owner and what permissions are required, which are real gaps for a destructive mutation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by the highest-risk parameter semantics. Nothing repetitive; the only mild redundancy is restating the field list that the schema already shows.

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?

For a 7-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the description covers the overwrite semantics well but leaves out permissions, side effects on the prior assignees, error behavior on bad ids, and what is returned. Adequate but not 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 coverage is 43%, so compensation is needed. The description adds genuine value for assign_to (replaces the set, first entry is primary owner, accepts name or list_people id) and hints at team, but title, description and priority have no schema descriptions and the description gives them no format or constraint guidance beyond restating the field names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Change a to-do') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, description, due date, priority, assignee, team), which clearly separates it from add_todo and complete_todo in the sibling list. Slightly short of a 5 because it never names a sibling or draws the boundary explicitly.

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?

Offers one positive usage cue ('Use it to hand a to-do to the person who owns it') and the partial-update rule, but gives no when-not guidance, no mention of complete_todo/set_todo_repeat as alternatives, and no prerequisites for reassignment. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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

All OTP 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?