Planning System MCP Server

update_node

Update node properties like title, description, or type atomically. Avoids status transitions and prevents changing type when children exist.

Instructions

Edit any node property atomically: title, description, node_type, task_mode, agent_instructions, metadata. Status transitions belong on update_task (which handles claim/log side effects). Rejects node_type changes when the node has children.

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": {
      "node_id": "<node_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`node_id`	Yes
`plan_id`	No	Auto-resolved if omitted.
`title`	No
`description`	No
`node_type`	No
`task_mode`	No
`agent_instructions`	No
`metadata`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed13 schema fields changedv0.8.1Apr 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / acceptance_criteria

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "New acceptance criteria",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / agent_instructions / description
```
Removed value: -"New agent instructions"
```

removedInput schema / properties / context

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "New context",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / description / description
```
Removed value: -"New node description"
```

removedInput schema / properties / due_date

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "New due date (ISO format)",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / metadata / description
```
Removed value: -"New metadata"
```
removedInput schema / properties / node_id / description
```
Removed value: -"Node ID"
```

addedInput schema / properties / node_type

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "phase",
+    "task",
+    "milestone"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / plan_id / description

Previous value: -"Plan ID"New value: +"Auto-resolved if omitted."

removedInput schema / properties / status

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "New node status",
-  "enum": [
-    "not_started",
-    "in_progress",
-    "completed",
-    "blocked"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / task_mode

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "free",
+    "research",
+    "plan",
+    "implement"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / title / description
```
Removed value: -"New node title"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "plan_id",
-  "node_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "node_id"
+]

First observedDec 29, 2025

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomic edits, lists editable properties, and notes rejection of node_type changes when children exist. This is good but could mention permissions or 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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value: listing editable properties, distinguishing from update_task, noting a behavioral constraint. No wasted words.

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 8 parameters with enums and nested objects. The description covers main editable properties and a key constraint, but lacks details on return values, plan_id auto-resolution, and metadata structure. Given complexity, it could be more complete.

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 very low (13%). The description adds meaning by listing the editable properties and noting a constraint on node_type, partially compensating. However, it does not detail format or constraints for each parameter beyond the schema enums.

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 explicitly states the tool edits node properties atomically, lists the specific properties, and distinguishes from update_task for status transitions. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that clearly differentiates from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for editing properties) and when not (status transitions belong on update_task). It names the alternative tool. However, it does not cover all potential sibling tools like delete_node or move_node.

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