openproject-mcp

Update project

op_update_project

Update an existing project by patching only specified fields such as name, description, visibility, or status. Provide the project identifier and any fields to modify.

Instructions

Patch an existing project. Only include the fields you want to change.

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": {
      "idOrIdentifier": "<idOrIdentifier>"
    },
    "name": "op_update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`idOrIdentifier`	Yes
`name`	No
`description`	No
`public`	No
`active`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions mutation but omits side effects, required permissions, error handling, or response details.

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 is a single concise sentence, efficiently conveying the core concept without waste. However, it could be better structured to include more details.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on return values, error states, and complete parameter guidance.

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% and the description does not clarify any parameter meaning beyond their names. No explanation of 'public' or 'active' project semantics is provided.

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 action ('Patch an existing project') and distinguishes it from creation and deletion siblings by emphasizing partial updates ('Only include the fields you want to change').

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?

It provides one useful guideline (partial updates) but lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit comparisons to alternatives like op_create_project or op_delete_project.

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