Skip to main content
Glama
84emllc

mcp-server-asana

by 84emllc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

asana_update_tag

Update an existing Asana tag's name, color, or notes using its unique GID. Modify tag details to keep your workspace organized.

Instructions

Update an existing tag

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoName of the tag
colorNoColor of the tag. Can be one of: dark-pink, dark-green, dark-blue, dark-red, dark-teal, dark-brown, dark-orange, dark-purple, dark-warm-gray, light-pink, light-green, light-blue, light-red, light-teal, light-brown, light-orange, light-purple, light-warm-gray
notesNoNotes about the tag
tag_gidYesGlobally unique identifier for the tag
opt_fieldsNoComma-separated list of optional fields to include

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It lacks details about required permissions, reversibility, partial-update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are cleared or left unchanged), or response behavior for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to cover what fields can be updated, return behavior, or any operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the schema fully documents all five parameters and their types. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ("Update an existing tag"), which is enough to distinguish it from asana_delete_tag, asana_get_tag, and asana_create_tag_for_workspace. However, it doesn't specify which tag fields can be updated or the scope of the operation, leaving the purpose at a vague minimum-viable level.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The single sentence implies the tool modifies an existing tag but offers no guidance on when to use it versus siblings like asana_create_tag_for_workspace or asana_add_tag_to_task. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools