D-Tools MCP Server

update_task

Update an existing D-Tools SI task by providing its ID and any combination of fields like project, name, status, assignee, or due date.

Instructions

Update an existing D-Tools SI task by ID. Accepts any combination of project, name, description, status, assignee, and due date.

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": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the update action and lists updatable fields, but omits details such as permissions required, idempotency, error handling (e.g., missing task), or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and succinctly listing fields. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given a nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and updatable fields but does not explain the return value, error behavior, or the role of the required 'id' field. It is adequate for basic use but lacks completeness for nuanced scenarios.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It lists the updatable fields as 'project, name, description, status, assignee, and due date', which adds meaning but contains an inaccuracy: the schema uses 'projectId' not 'project'. This slightly reduces reliability.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing D-Tools SI task by ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task and get_task. The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 usage for updating tasks but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like create_task for new tasks or list_tasks for finding IDs. No exclusions or situational advice is provided.

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