update_collaboration_task【需要登录】更新任务标题、描述、截止；换被指派人需要指派权限且可能通知新负责人。权限由服务校验，省略保留，detail/dueAt=null 清空。状态用 set_collaboration_task_status。结果不明或超时后先查询现值，不要自动重发；服务没有持久请求去重键。 用 get_collaboration_goal 核对任务。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dueAt | No | 截止时刻 ISO 8601，须含时区；null 清空，省略保留现值 | |
| title | No | ||
| detail | No | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| assigneeId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: omitted fields are preserved, null clears detail/dueAt, assignee reassignment may notify the new assignee, permissions are service-validated, and there is no persistent dedupe key. This aligns with destructiveHint and idempotentHint and provides important operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact but dense, with each sentence delivering operational guidance. It front-loads the login requirement and scope, then covers parameter semantics, sibling routing, and failure handling without repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, permission nuances, field update semantics, alternative tool routing, timeout handling, and verification strategy. It is unusually complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 20% schema coverage, the description compensates strongly: it explains that omission preserves values, null clears detail/dueAt, and assigneeId changes require assignment permission and may trigger notification. This directly clarifies the most ambiguous parameter behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the tool updates task title, description, due date, and assignee, and it names set_collaboration_task_status as the sibling for status changes. This gives a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit routing: status changes go to set_collaboration_task_status, and verification uses get_collaboration_goal. It also covers login requirements, permission checks, and post-timeout behavior with clear guidance not to auto-retry.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly documented purpose, often with explicit 'when to use' guidance and cross-references, making the vast majority easy to tell apart. A few clusters (get_my_brief, get_my_positioning, get_my_work, get_my_dispatch) and data-overlapping get_my_card vs get_my_profile require careful reading, but descriptions are detailed enough to prevent serious misselection.
The overwhelming majority follow snake_case verb_noun conventions (create_product, update_need, list_my_signups). Minor deviations include noun-only feed names (personalized_feed, random_feed), inconsistency between 'prefs' and 'preferences' in notification tools, and a mix of update_* and set_* for mutations, but the pattern remains predictable overall.
137 tools is an extreme mismatch for any MCP server, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for a score of 1. Even with a broad multi-domain platform, this volume makes tool selection and navigation impractical and heavily burdens the agent's context window.
The surface covers full lifecycles for needs, products, activities/signups, conversations, collaboration goals/tasks, dispatch, profile/onboarding, and supporting resources like companies, parks, policies, and ratings. Deliberate omissions (no user-post creation, no organizer profile editing via agent) are explicitly documented, so core workflows have no obvious dead ends.