idea-base-mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_task

Update task details—title, description, estimates, acceptance criteria, dates, assignee, and blockers—to keep project data accurate and current.

Instructions

Update task details like title, description, estimates, or acceptance criteria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title for the task
`task_id`	Yes	The ID of the task to update
`due_date`	No	New due date as YYYY-MM-DD. Pass an empty string to clear it.
`priority`	No	New priority level (0-5, higher is more important)
`blocked_by`	No	REPLACES the full set of tasks this task is blocked by. Pass [] to clear all of them. Every id must be a task in the same product; a circular chain (A blocked by B blocked by A) is rejected. While any of these is not done, the task shows as blocked whatever its stored status says.
`start_date`	No	New start date as YYYY-MM-DD. Pass an empty string to clear it.
`description`	No	New description
`blocked_reason`	No	Free-text reason shown next to a manually-set Blocked status ("waiting on the client"). Cleared automatically when the task leaves the blocked status.
`assignee_user_id`	No	User ID to assign the task to, replacing any existing assignee. Must be a member of the same account. Pass an empty string to unassign.
`estimated_minutes`	No	New time estimate in minutes
`acceptance_criteria`	No	New acceptance criteria

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.3.0Sep 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / assignee_user_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "User ID to assign the task to, replacing any existing assignee. Must be a member of the same account. Pass an empty string to unassign.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / blocked_by

Added value: +{
+  "description": "REPLACES the full set of tasks this task is blocked by. Pass [] to clear all of them. Every id must be a task in the same product; a circular chain (A blocked by B blocked by A) is rejected. While any of these is not done, the task shows as blocked whatever its stored status says.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / blocked_reason

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Free-text reason shown next to a manually-set Blocked status (\"waiting on the client\"). Cleared automatically when the task leaves the blocked status.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / due_date

Added value: +{
+  "description": "New due date as YYYY-MM-DD. Pass an empty string to clear it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / priority / description

Previous value: -"New priority level"New value: +"New priority level (0-5, higher is more important)"

addedInput schema / properties / start_date

Added value: +{
+  "description": "New start date as YYYY-MM-DD. Pass an empty string to clear it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv1.2.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., blocked_by replaces the full set), permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with 11 parameters.

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?

Single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the primary purpose. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so it scores slightly below the maximum for conciseness.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the scope of updatable fields, behavior nuances (like replacement semantics for blocked_by), or any constraints beyond what the schema provides. An agent would need to rely entirely on the schema, which is not sufficient for effective selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists a few example fields, which is redundant with the schema but does not add new semantic information about parameter usage or constraints.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (task), and lists example fields (title, description, estimates, acceptance criteria), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task and update_task_status. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task_status. Does not mention that status updates have a dedicated tool, or any conditions or prerequisites for use.

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

update_task

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools