MCP for Microsoft To Do

update_checklist_item

Idempotent

Rename or check/uncheck a sub-item in a Microsoft To Do task.

Instructions

Update a sub-item (rename or check/uncheck).

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": {
      "list_id": "<list_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_checklist_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`list_id`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`item_id`	Yes
`display_name`	No
`is_checked`	No
`verbose`	No	If true: returns full JSON. Otherwise: compact text format (default, saves tokens).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1May 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds the concrete actions (rename, check/uncheck) but does not disclose additional behavior like error conditions or side effects. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core function efficiently. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.

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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the effect of omitted optional fields, return format, or behavior on duplicate updates. The annotations add some context, but the description lacks necessary detail for a complex tool.

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?

With only 17% schema coverage, the description should compensate but only hints at the role of display_name and is_checked via 'rename or check/uncheck'. It does not explain list_id, task_id, item_id, or verbose beyond what the schema provides. The verbose parameter has its own description, but others lack clarity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a sub-item' with specific examples 'rename or check/uncheck'. It effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_checklist_item, delete_checklist_item, and list_checklist_items.

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 when to use (to modify a checklist item) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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