tasks_updateChange a task: its state, or the result of doing it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task's id | |
| title | No | New title | |
| detail | No | New detail | |
| result | No | What came of it — the answer, the outcome, what was found | |
| status | No | todo, doing or done |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / result / descriptionPrevious value: -"What came of it: the answer, the outcome, what was found"New value: +"What came of it — the answer, the outcome, what was found"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations lack readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description must convey mutating behavior. It says 'Change a task,' which implies a write operation, but offers no details on permissions, partial update semantics, or side effects, providing minimal transparency beyond the schema.
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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with 'Change a task.' It is concise, though the colon clause is somewhat vague; there is no wasted content.
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse to fully understand the update behavior (e.g., whether fields are partially updated, required auth, return value). It does not compensate for the lack of structured context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described (id, title, detail, result, status). The description mentions 'state' and 'result' but adds no new meaning or usage syntax beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the verb 'Change' with resource 'task', clearly indicating an update operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools (tasks_create, tasks_delete) by focusing on modifying an existing task, though it only mentions state and result, not title/detail.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name.
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.
Every tool is prefixed with a clear domain (e.g., apps_, blog_, transit_), and the suffix identifies a distinct action or resource. Overlapping tools like archive_search and news_search are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions.
All tools consistently use a domain_prefix_suffix pattern, but the suffix is sometimes a verb (create, list, search) and sometimes a noun (inbox, status, address). This minor mixing prevents a perfect score but remains predictable and readable.
With 113 tools, the count is far beyond the typical well-scoped range, even for a broad personal assistant. While each tool is distinct and serves a purpose, the sheer number is overwhelming and could be better organized into separate domain-specific servers.
Each domain has near-complete lifecycle coverage, including CRUD and search where relevant, with only minor gaps such as missing apps_delete or events_update. The wide range of covered domains itself demonstrates strong completeness for a general assistant.