Skip to main content
Glama
IDEAManagement

idea-base-mcp-server

Official
by IDEAManagement
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_task_status

Update task status (todo, in_progress, blocked, done) and trigger real-time notifications to project viewers. Handles derived status for tasks with subtasks or dependencies.

Instructions

Change the status of a task (todo, in_progress, blocked, done). This triggers a real-time notification to users viewing the project. Note that a task with subtasks or dependencies also has a DERIVED status which can differ from the one set here — see effective_status / status_reason on get_task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYesNew status for the task. "ready_to_complete" is NOT settable — it is derived when every subtask is done.
task_idYesThe ID of the task to update
blocked_reasonNoWhy the task is blocked. Only meaningful with status "blocked"; cleared automatically on any other status.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / blocked_reason
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Why the task is blocked. Only meaningful with status \"blocked\"; cleared automatically on any other status.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Previous value: -"New status for the task"New value: +"New status for the task. \"ready_to_complete\" is NOT settable — it is derived when every subtask is done."
    • changedInput schema / properties / status / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "todo",
-  "in_progress",
-  "done"
-]New value: +[
+  "todo",
+  "in_progress",
+  "blocked",
+  "done"
+]
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the basic mutation by noting that a real-time notification is triggered and that a derived status may differ from the explicitly set one, which are meaningful side effects. It does not cover permissions or reversibility, but the most important behavioral nuances are disclosed.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, followed by the notification side effect and then the important derived-status caveat. Every sentence adds necessary 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 three-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers the core action, side effects, and the key edge case of derived status, while pointing to get_task for the effective values. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema and none is strictly necessary for a status update; a brief note on permissions would make it fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the distinction between the settable status and the derived status, and by pointing to effective_status/status_reason on get_task. It does not discuss blocked_reason, but the schema already fully documents that parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Change'), a clear resource ('status of a task'), and enumerates the allowed statuses, so the tool's purpose is immediately obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'update_task', which is a general-purpose update tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for changing task status and warns about derived status differing from the set value, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the sibling 'update_task' or any alternative, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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