MCP for Microsoft To Do

update_task

Idempotent

Update an existing task's title, status, recurrence, and reminder settings.

Instructions

Update an existing task (title, status, recurrence, reminder, etc.).

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`list_id`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`title`	No
`status`	No
`body`	No
`importance`	No
`due_date`	No	ISO 8601
`time_zone`	No
`categories`	No
`recurrence`	No	Microsoft Graph patternedRecurrence. Combines pattern (type, interval, ...) and range (type, startDate, ...).
`is_reminder_on`	No
`reminder_date_time`	No	ISO 8601
`reminder_time_zone`	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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. Description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., effect on omitted fields, permissions needed, rate limits).

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, concise. No wasted words, but could benefit from a bit more structure (e.g., bullet points for key parameters).

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?

Complex tool with 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. Description fails to explain behavior on omitted fields, error scenarios, or return value. Incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is low (29%). Description mentions only a subset of parameters (title, status, recurrence, reminder), ignoring others like importance, due_date, categories. Does not fully compensate for schema gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates an existing task (verb+resource) and lists common fields like title, status, recurrence, reminder. It distinguishes from create/delete/batch siblings.

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 vs alternatives like batch_update or complete_task. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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