Claude Project History MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Task

cph_task_update

Idempotent

Update task properties like title, description, priority, status, and estimated minutes. Modify existing tasks to keep project history accurate.

Instructions

Update task fields. For starting/completing, prefer task_start and task_complete.

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>"
    },
    "name": "cph_task_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes
`title`	No
`description`	No
`priority`	No
`status`	No
`estimated_minutes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the purpose. It does not contradict annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value.

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 (2 with enums) and no output schema, the description omits any detail about parameter usage, return values, or behavioral side effects. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for any of the 6 parameters. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond what the schema's names and types imply.

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 'Update task fields,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'For starting/completing, prefer task_start and task_complete.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly advises when to use alternative tools ('For starting/completing, prefer task_start and task_complete'), providing clear when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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