google-workspace-mcp-advanced

update_task

Update an existing task's title, notes, status, or due date. Use dry-run mode to preview changes before applying.

Instructions

Update an existing task.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. task_list_id (str): The ID of the task list containing the task. task_id (str): The ID of the task to update. title (Optional[str]): New title for the task. notes (Optional[str]): New notes/description for the task. status (Optional[str]): New status ("needsAction" or "completed"). due (Optional[str]): New due date in RFC 3339 format. dry_run (bool): When True (default), return planned mutation without executing.

Returns: str: Confirmation message with updated task details.

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": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "task_list_id": "<task_list_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_google_email`	Yes
`task_list_id`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`title`	No
`notes`	No
`status`	No
`due`	No
`dry_run`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.10Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses dry_run behavior and return type, but does not mention error handling, required permissions, or side effects like what happens if task_id is invalid. The description adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is concise for an 8-parameter tool, with no redundant sentences. Could be slightly more compact, but efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown in detail but described as returning a string), the description covers all parameters, return value, and dry_run behavior. It lacks error case handling and authorization requirements, but is still fairly complete for the update operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter, including optionality, status options ('needsAction' or 'completed'), and due date format (RFC 3339). It clarifies the dry_run purpose. Some parameters could have more detail (e.g., notes format), but overall adds significant value.

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 states 'Update an existing task', clearly identifying the verb (update) and resource (task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, move_task, and clear_completed_tasks.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies use when modifying an existing task, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like move_task or clear_completed_tasks. The tool name and function are clear enough to infer usage context.

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

Deploy Server