Skip to main content
Glama

ACC MCP

by io.scanbimlabs

acc_update_issue

Patch an existing ACC issue — change status, priority, assignee, or description via the APS Construction Issues API.

When to use: The user asks to close/reopen/escalate an issue, reassign it, or edit its body. Typical agent flow: acc_list_issues → pick an id → acc_update_issue.

When NOT to use: Do not use to create issues (acc_create_issue) or to add comments (not supported by this server).

APS scopes: data:read data:write account:read.

Rate limits: ACC Issues API ~100 req/min per app; APS default ~50 req/min per endpoint.

Errors: 401 (APS token expired — refresh); 403 (user lacks edit permission or status transition not allowed by project workflow); 404 (project_id or issue_id not found — verify 'b.' prefix on project_id and that issue_id belongs to that project); 422 (validation — invalid status/priority enum or illegal state transition); 429 (rate limit — back off 60s); 5xx (ACC upstream — retry with jitter).

Side effects: Mutates the issue record. Idempotent when the same body is resent (PATCH semantics) — safe to retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoNew status. Project workflow may forbid certain transitions (e.g. draft → closed).
issue_idYesUUID of the issue to update, as returned by acc_list_issues or acc_create_issue.
priorityNoNew priority.
project_idYesACC project ID. MUST use the 'b.' prefix literal. Obtain via acc_list_projects.
assigned_toNoAPS user ID of the new assignee. Omit to leave unchanged.
descriptionNoReplacement description body. Plain text.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses mutation side effects, idempotency (PATCH semantics, safe to retry), required APS scopes, rate limits, and a detailed error taxonomy with actionable remediation. This is exemplary transparency.

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 well-organized into short purposeful sections (purpose, when to use, when not, scopes, rate limits, errors, side effects). No fluff; every sentence adds operational value. Length is justified by the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers almost everything an agent needs: usage, prerequisites, side effects, and error handling. The only minor omission is an explicit statement of what the tool returns on success (since there is no output schema), but this is a small gap given the mutation-focused use case.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, though the error notes reinforce constraints like the 'b.' prefix on project_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Patch') and names the resource ('existing ACC issue') and affected fields (status, priority, assignee, description). It explicitly distinguishes from creation and comment tools, making sibling differentiation clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers (close/reopen/escalate/reassign/edit body), a typical agent flow (acc_list_issues → pick id → acc_update_issue), and clear exclusions (do not use for create or comments, which are not supported). This goes beyond vague guidance.

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

All ACC MCP 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity (issue, RFI, project, document, file) and action (create, list, update, search, upload, summary). The 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' notes in descriptions further prevent confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent acc_verb_noun pattern (e.g., acc_create_issue, acc_list_projects, acc_upload_file). Verbs are always lowercase, nouns are singular, and there are no mixed conventions.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well-scoped for an ACC MCP server. It covers core project management operations (issues, RFIs, projects, documents, file upload) without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers create, read (list), and update for issues, plus create and list for RFIs. Missing update for RFIs and a dedicated get-by-ID for individual issues or RFIs are minor gaps, but the core workflows are supported.

Resources