Skip to main content
Glama
EthanQC

feishu-user-plugin

by EthanQC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_task

Patch specific fields of a Feishu task by providing the task GUID, an array of field names to update, and a task object with new field values.

Instructions

[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7] Patch a task. update_fields is required by Feishu — list which fields to update (e.g. ["summary","due","completed_at"]).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_guidYesTask GUID
update_fieldsYesRequired. Names of fields to update. E.g. ["summary","description","due","completed_at","start","extra","repeat_rule"]. Feishu only patches fields listed here, ignoring other keys in `task`.
taskYesField values. E.g. {summary:"new title", due:{timestamp:"1717939200000"}}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.10

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions an API version and the update_fields requirement. It does not state whether only listed fields are modified, what response is returned, or any side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences with the core instruction front-loaded. The '[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7]' prefix is minor noise, but the overall structure is tight and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description plus schema cover parameter construction well, especially for nested task objects. However, without annotations or an output schema, response behavior and tool-selection context remain under-specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description only needs to add nuance. It contributes the fact that update_fields is required by Feishu and provides an example field list, but this is largely redundant with the schema's own Required flag and examples.

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 states 'Patch a task' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task, complete_task, delete_task, and get_task. The function is immediately obvious.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only instruction is that update_fields is required by Feishu, which is a parameter requirement, not a tool-selection guideline. Alternatives like complete_task or manage_task_members are never 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