upservice-mcp

upservice_update_task_estimation

Idempotent

Update the planned-effort estimate for a task by specifying its ID and duration in minutes. Returns the updated task as JSON.

Instructions

Set the planned-effort estimate for a task, in minutes.

Args: params (UpdateTaskEstimationInput): task_id (int), estimation (int, minutes)

Returns: str: JSON of the updated task.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "upservice_update_task_estimation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). Description adds return value info but no additional behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or constraints.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with purpose. The Args/Returns block is somewhat redundant but not overly verbose.

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 low complexity (1 required param, simple operation) and presence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and return type.

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 descriptions already fully define parameters (task_id and estimation). Tool description's Args block merely restates schema info, adding no new semantic 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Set' and specific resource 'planned-effort estimate for a task' in minutes. Distinguishes from sibling tools like upservice_update_task (general update) and upservice_update_task_status (status update).

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?

Implies usage for setting estimation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server