Skip to main content
Glama
Selerity

accelo-mcp

by Selerity
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

accelo_update_activity

Update an existing activity's details, including subject, body, visibility, priority, billable time, and start date.

Instructions

Update an existing activity.

Args: id: Activity ID (required) subject: New subject (only if owner) body: New body (only if owner) visibility: New visibility priority_id: New priority ID class_id: New activity class ID billable: Billable time in seconds nonbillable: Non-billable time in seconds date_started: New start date as a unix timestamp (seconds since UTC). For meetings this is the scheduled start; otherwise it sets the logged date (date_logged derives from date_started). fields: Additional fields to return

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
bodyNo
fieldsNo
subjectNo
billableNo
class_idNo
visibilityNo
nonbillableNo
priority_idNo
date_startedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / class_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Class Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / date_started
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Date Started"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose mutation, an ownership restriction, and nuanced date_started behavior where date_logged derives from date_started. It does not describe response format, partial-update behavior, or broader side effects.

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 a single clear summary line followed by a compact, well-organized parameter list. The additional detail on date_started is front-loaded and earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so more context is needed. Parameter meanings and units are mostly covered, but the description omits return shape, error conditions, accepted visibility/priority values, and explicit update semantics beyond the listed fields.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: id is marked required, subject/body have owner restrictions, billable/nonbillable are in seconds, and date_started is explained with unix timestamp semantics. Some parameters like visibility and priority_id are only restated as 'New X,' so the compensation is not complete.

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?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Update an existing activity,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from create/delete/get by using 'existing' and 'update,' though it does not name sibling tools or explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the update semantics, and the parameter notes provide some conditions, such as subject/body being editable 'only if owner.' However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus create or delete activity alternatives.

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