Skip to main content
Glama

update_task

Update a task's fields—title, priority, status, feature, insight, description, or assignees—by providing the task id and the fields to change. Omitted fields stay unchanged; null clears nullable fields.

Instructions

Update one or more of a task's fields and return the updated task; fields you omit are left unchanged (idempotent — re-sending the same values is a no-op), and passing null clears a nullable field. Resolve ids first — the task via list_tasks/get_task, and status/feature/insight/member ids via pm_meta — never guess them. Only id is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTask id, from list_tasks or get_task.
titleNoNew title (optional).
priorityNoNew priority; null clears it (optional).
status_idNoNew status id, from pm_meta; null clears it (optional).
feature_idNoNew feature id, from pm_meta; null unlinks (optional).
insight_idNoNew insight id; null unlinks (optional).
descriptionNoNew description; null clears it (optional).
assignee_member_idsNoMember ids to assign, from pm_meta (optional).
Behavior4/5

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

Disclosed idempotency, null clearing, and partial update behavior. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Lacks details on error handling or auth, but covers key mutation behaviors well.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description covers idempotency, null handling, and ID resolution. Missing error behavior, but context is solid for an update tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds context like 'fields omitted unchanged' and 'never guess IDs', which goes beyond schema. Baseline 3 is elevated due to added value.

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 explicitly states the tool updates task fields, returns the updated task, and highlights key behaviors like partial update and idempotency. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_task and get_task.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit instructions to resolve IDs via list_tasks/get_task and pm_meta, and warns against guessing. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternatives, the guidance is strong and actionable.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AIOProductOS/claude-plugin'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server