Lenx MCP Server

lenx_update_task

Update a task's name or search query configuration. Include the task ID and supply new values for any fields you want to change.

Instructions

Update an existing task's name and/or search query configuration. At least one field is required.

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_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "lenx_update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task_id`	Yes	Task ID to update
`task_name`	No	New task name (1-50 characters)
`search_query`	No	Partial search query update. Provide only the fields to change. Example: {"query_layer": [{"in": ["new_keyword"], "ex": []}]}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1May 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Update', which implies modification, but fails to disclose key behaviors like partial update semantics (unspecified fields remain unchanged) or potential side effects. No mention of permissions, idempotency, or error responses.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence and a parenthetical. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover more. It lacks information about the return value or response format after update. However, the input schema is detailed and sibling tools provide surrounding context. The description is adequate but not complete for an update operation.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so the main description adds limited value beyond reinforcing 'at least one field is required'. The description does provide a useful constraint that is not in the schema, but overall it does not significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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', the resource 'existing task', and the specific fields that can be updated ('name and/or search query configuration'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like lenx_create_task or lenx_delete_task.

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 provides basic usage context by stating 'At least one field is required', but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites or error conditions.

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

Deploy Server