Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dida365 MCP Server

Dida365 MCP Server

by Martinqi826
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_task

Update an existing task's title, due date, priority, tags, or content by providing the task ID and project ID.

Instructions

更新已有任务的信息，如标题、截止日期、优先级等。需要提供 task_id 和 project_id。

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo新标签列表（可选）
titleNo新标题（可选）
contentNo新内容（可选）
task_idYes任务ID
due_dateNo新截止日期（可选，ISO 8601格式）
priorityNo新优先级（0=无, 1=低, 3=中, 5=高）
project_idYes项目ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' but does not disclose whether updates are incremental or replace all fields, error conditions, permission requirements, or idempotency behavior.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, though the second sentence about required parameters is redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description partially covers purpose and required parameters but omits return value, error behavior, and whether updates are partial. Given no output schema and no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond listing example fields (title, due date, priority), which is already in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool updates existing tasks, listing example fields (title, due date, priority), and identifies required parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, complete_task, and delete_task.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. complete or delete a task). It only describes basic functionality.

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