Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike

tascan_update_event

Idempotent

Update an event / task list (name, description, team_mode, multi_instance, timer_mode). team_mode and multi_instance cannot both be true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name
list_idYesTask list (event) ID
team_modeNoTeam mode — shared completions
timer_modeNoTimer mode (auto or manual)
descriptionNoNew description
multi_instanceNoMulti-instance — each worker gets isolated copy
assigned_worker_idsNoWorker UUIDs to assign to this event (additive — workers not named are left alone). Each gets a personal tap-to-open link. Note: a worker holds one event assignment per project — assigning moves them.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

This directly contradicts the annotations: readOnlyHint is true, yet the description says 'Update an event / task list', which is a mutation. destructiveHint: false does not resolve the contradiction, and no side effects or error behavior are disclosed. This is a severe transparency failure.

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?

The description is two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The action and resource come first, and the critical constraint is isolated as a clearly readable second sentence.

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?

The core update semantics are stated and the schema covers the parameters, but no output behavior is described and there is no indication of what happens on a partial update or when the team_mode/multi_instance invariant is violated. The contradictory readOnlyHint annotation further weakens the overall context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents every parameter. The description adds genuine value by stating the non-obvious invariant that team_mode and multi_instance cannot both be true, which is not present in the schema. It also reinforces which fields are updatable.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an event / task list', and lists the precise editable fields. This distinguishes it from create/delete/get/list event tools and clarifies the domain vocabulary that an 'event' is a task list.

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?

It does not explain when to choose update_event over create_event, delete_event, or other update_* siblings. It provides no prerequisites or exclusion conditions; the only conditional note is a parameter compatibility constraint, not tool-selection guidance. Usage is only implied by the word 'Update'.

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

All TaScan toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.

Resources