huly-mcp-selfhost

update_todo

Modify an existing to-do's title, priority, due date, description, or completion status to keep task lists accurate and current.

Instructions

Update a to-do or mark it done

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "todoId": "<todoId>"
    },
    "name": "update_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`done`	No
`title`	No
`todoId`	Yes	From list_todos
`dueDate`	No
`priority`	No
`workspace`	Yes
`description`	No	Markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the rest of the behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether this is a partial update (only supplied fields changed) or a full replacement, whether setting done=true is reversible or stamps a completion date, or what permission/authorization constraints exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single front-loaded sentence is free of padding, so there's no verbosity problem. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification for a 7-parameter mutation, so the size doesn't fit the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, 29% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies only the most basic intent. An agent would not know what the call returns, which fields are optional, or how partial updates behave.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 29% across 7 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. 'Mark it done' gestures at the done flag, but dueDate's nullability, the priority enum values, workspace scoping, and the title/description distinction are all left entirely to an under-documented schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('a to-do') and mentions the notable special case of completion. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings such as schedule_todo or bulk_update_issues, which a reader would have to infer from names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives: no mention of schedule_todo for dates, bulk_update_issues for multiple items, or create_todo for new items. The agent gets an implied 'edit an existing todo' context but no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server