Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fizzy MCP Server

Fizzy MCP Server

by Fabric-Pro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Step

fizzy_update_step

Update a to-do step's description or completion status to mark checklist items as done or edit their details.

Instructions

Update a to-do step's description or completion status. Use this to mark steps as complete/incomplete or edit their descriptions.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_slug": "<account_slug>",
      "card_number": "<card_number>",
      "step_id": "<step_id>"
    },
    "name": "fizzy_update_step"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNoNew step content. Omit to keep current content unchanged.
step_idYesThe unique step/to-do identifier: a 25-character identifier, e.g., '0000000000000000000000abc'. Steps are checklist items on cards. Step IDs are returned when creating steps or fetching card details.
completedNoCompletion status. true = mark as complete/done, false = mark as incomplete/pending. Omit to keep current completion status. This is how you check off checklist items.
card_numberYesThe card number - the visible ID shown on the board (e.g., '#123'). This is different from card_id and is used for some endpoints. Card numbers are shown in the Fizzy UI and are user-friendly identifiers.
account_slugYesThe account slug identifier (e.g., '123456' or '/123456'). This identifies which Fizzy account to operate on. Get available account slugs from fizzy_get_identity or fizzy_get_accounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal that this is neither read-only nor destructive. The description adds that the operation modifies step content or completion status, but does not disclose side effects, partial-update behavior, or response details. This is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It states the action and resource first, then gives the concrete use case, and does not repeat schema information.

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?

For a simple, non-destructive update tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, the description plus schema is mostly complete. It could be improved by noting that at least one of content or completed should be provided, and by explaining what the caller should expect in the response.

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 input schema fully documents all five parameters. The description only loosely maps 'description or completion status' to the content and completed parameters, adding no new parameter-level detail.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('to-do step'), and the exact scopes ('description or completion status'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like fizzy_create_step, fizzy_delete_step, and fizzy_get_step.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to mark steps as complete/incomplete or edit their descriptions.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource scope is clear enough that an agent can select it over update_card or other mutation tools.

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