Skip to main content
Glama

TaScan

by io.github.snowbikemike

tascan_update_task

Idempotent

Update a task (title, description, response_type, flags, sort_order)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoNew title
task_idYesTask ID
sort_orderNoSort position
assigned_toNoWorker to assign this task to — pass the worker UUID (validated against your org and stored as the worker's name, which is how the worker portal matches "my tasks"). A plain name string is also accepted as-is. Pass null to clear.
descriptionNoNew description
response_typeNoSee tascan_add_tasks for guidance. "text" for info collection, "photo" for visual proof, "checkbox" for yes/no only.
requires_photoNoRequire photo
response_configNoResponse configuration. For "choice": {options: [...]}. See tascan_add_tasks.
required_equipmentNoEquipment this task depends on (free text)
is_safety_checkpointNoSafety-critical flag

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide safety and idempotency hints, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond the name—it does not clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged, whether the update is partial or full, or what side effects occur (e.g., worker assignment storage behavior). The vague 'flags' term also obscures the actual behavior.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and key fields. It loses a point because 'flags' is an imprecise stand-in for the actual boolean parameters, which could mislead an agent that does not open the schema.

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?

Given 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is minimal but not insufficient for tool selection. It omits several updatable fields and any note about behavior such as partial updates or validation, yet the rich scheama documentation compensates for parameter-level completeness. Overall adequate with clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains every parameter in detail. The description only lists a subset of fields and does not add semantics for those not named, such as assigned_to, response_config, or required_equipment. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('Update a task') and enumerates several updatable fields, so an agent can tell this is the update operation for tasks. However, 'flags' is vague and no explicit differentiation from adding tasks or updating subtasks is given, though sibling names make it inferable.

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?

Usage context is only implied by the verb and resource: an agent can infer this is for updating an existing task rather than adding one or updating a subtask. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are mentioned, so it does not fully satisfy the dimension.

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