Skip to main content
Glama

update_task

Update a task's mutable fields such as status, title, or deadline. For recurring tasks, specify scope to apply changes to one, following, or all instances.

Instructions

Patch mutable fields on a task.

task_id accepts any reference form — UUID, sequence shorthand (#123, personal-org only), canonical ref (acme-123), or app URL — and is resolved to a UUID before the update.

status must be one of open, in-progress, in-review, done, dropped, pruned. The backend rejects completing a task while any of its children are still active.

Pass None explicitly to clear a field (e.g. complete_by=None removes the deadline). Omitting a parameter leaves it unchanged.

recurrence sets or clears a repeat schedule (see create_task).

recurring_type can be "chore", "habit", or "event" (see create_task for details). Pass None to clear.

For recurring tasks, if you change title, description, labels, or complete_by, you MUST also provide recurring_scope: "this" (single instance), "following" (this and future), or "all" (entire series). "this" and "following" also require recurrence_id (the ISO start time of the instance). If the task is recurring and scope is missing, the call will fail with a message asking you to specify the scope — ask the user which option they prefer.

v0.2 optional field:

  • occurrence_id: when this Task is a materialized subtask of a recurring entity's occurrence, the Occurrence id it belongs to. Normal tasks omit this field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
titleNo
descriptionNo
statusNo
labelsNo
assigneeNo
complete_byNo
productiveNo
desireNo
recurrenceNo
recurring_scopeNo
recurrence_idNo
recurring_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses key behaviors: multiple ID formats (UUID, shorthand, canonical ref, URL), status constraints (cannot complete with active children), field clearing via None, recurring scope requirement and error message, and optional occurrence_id field. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections; every sentence adds value. Slightly long but justified by complexity of recurring tasks and multiple ID formats. Could be more concise, but overall effective.

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?

Given 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description comprehensively covers ID resolution, status constraints, recurring scope rules, and clearing mechanism. References external docs for recurrence details. Sufficient for agent to use correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, description adds significant semantic value: explains task_id formats, status enum values, clearing behavior for all parameters, recurring scope/ID dependencies, and references create_task for recurrence details. However, not every parameter (e.g., assignee, labels, productive) gets individual explanation, relying on general rules.

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?

Clearly states 'Patch mutable fields on a task.' The verb 'patch' and resource 'task' are specific, and the description distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_task, delete_task, set_task_status by focusing on partial updates to existing tasks.

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 clear guidance on when to use: updating task fields, with explicit instructions for clearing fields (None), handling recurring tasks (scope/ID dependencies), and error handling. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but context is sufficient.

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/Circuit-Stitch/defernowork-mcp'

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