Update a GitHub Project work item's Status by exact option name. Ensures authorized, idempotent, verified changes with an audit trail.
Semantically update one authorized GitHub Project work item's Status by exact option name. Uses Shared Core authorization, idempotency, verification, and actor-aware audit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | ||
| itemId | Yes | ||
| number | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's restatement of idempotency adds nothing. It does earn credit for going beyond them by disclosing Shared Core authorization, built-in verification, and actor-aware audit — behavior an agent would otherwise not know.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope. Only mild waste in the jargon stack ('Shared Core', 'semantically'), which costs a point but not readability.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter coverage, the description covers the behavioral contract (auth, idempotency, verification, audit) reasonably but leaves critical call details unexplained: how to obtain a valid status option name, what owner/number/itemId identify, and how this differs from the near-identical sibling status tool.
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 0% across 4 required parameters, so the description must carry the load. 'By exact option name' usefully explains the status parameter (matching the field's option name, which matters because there are no enums), but owner, number and itemId are left entirely undocumented.
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 verb+resource are stated specifically: updating one GitHub Project work item's Status field. However, the sibling set contains both 'update_github_project_item_status' and 'update_github_project_item_field', and the description offers no way to tell this tool apart from them; the 'Semantically' qualifier is jargon that does not clarify the distinction.
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 phrase 'one authorized ... work item' weakly signals single-item (not bulk) use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as 'update_github_project_item_field' or the bulk-plan tools. The agent must infer scope from a single adjective.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.