mcptask.online

UpdatePieceTool

Update the mutable attributes of an existing Task, Story, Epic or Recurent by relative_id. Only the attributes passed are changed; omitted ones are left alone. Returns before/after for each attribute touched. A dependency on another piece is declared with blocked_by_relative_ids — the updated piece waits for the ids listed there. Removing a link is not done here: use ManageBlockerLinksTool, where piece_relative_id is the WAITING piece and blocker_relative_ids are the pieces it waits for.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name for the piece (omit to leave unchanged)
`sprint_id`	No	Database ID (primary key) of the sprint to assign (not relative_id). Omit to leave unchanged.
`for_errors`	No	Whether this Epic is the project's bug bucket (Epic only). Omit to leave unchanged. Passing it for another piece type returns a validation error.
`description`	No	New description for the piece (omit to leave unchanged)
`account_code`	Yes	Account code (e.g., "bcp", "jchsoft")
`priority_code`	No	Priority code. Omit to leave unchanged.
`task_type_code`	No	Task type code (Task only). Omit to leave unchanged.
`assigned_user_id`	No	Database ID (primary key) of the user to assign. Omit to leave unchanged; pass 0 (or null) to explicitly unassign.
`scrum_point_code`	No	Scrum point/complexity code (Task/Recurent: !, S, M, L, XL, XXL, XXXL; Story: m!, mS, mM, mL, mXL, mXXL, mXXXL). Omit to leave unchanged.
`piece_relative_id`	Yes	Relative ID of the piece to update
`parent_relative_id`	No	Relative ID of a parent piece in the same project. Omit to leave unchanged; pass 0 (or null) to move the piece to the project root.
`blocked_by_relative_ids`	No	Relative IDs of the pieces this piece waits for (its blocked_by links). Additive: it only adds links — remove them with ManageBlockerLinksTool(action: "remove"); an id already linked is refused, do not re-send it. All-or-nothing: one id that does not resolve in the account rejects the whole call and creates nothing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: partial-update semantics (omitted attributes untouched), a stated return shape (before/after per attribute), additive link behavior, rejection of already-linked ids, and all-or-nothing resolution failure. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and behavior, and the final sentence usefully disambiguates the blocker-link direction. The dependency sentence is somewhat dense but each clause carries distinct information; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral and return-value context, plus the alternative-tool pointer. Nothing essential to correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 every parameter already documents omit-to-leave-unchanged, ID-vs-relative_id, type restrictions, and unassign-by-zero. The description's parameter-level notes (blocked_by_relative_ids) largely restate what the schema already says, so it adds little beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb ("Update"), the resource (Task, Story, Epic, Recurent), the keying attribute (relative_id), and the scope of mutation (only mutable attributes). An agent can immediately distinguish it from CreatePieceTool, GetPieceTool, and ManageBlockerLinksTool.

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?

Explicitly routes link removal to ManageBlockerLinksTool and clarifies the role semantics there (piece_relative_id is the WAITING piece). It also states that this tool is where dependencies are declared, so it covers both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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

All mcptask.online tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?