amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

set_priority

Idempotent

Set or change a task's priority level (Most, Very, Important, Low) or frog marker by task ID, with options to remove either. Use when a task needs its importance or frog status updated.

Instructions

Set priority (P1-P3 or low) or the frog marker on a task. Set or change priority (isStarred) and/or the frog marker on an existing TASK. Requires the Full Access Token. The app's four levels are stored as isStarred 3/2/1/-1 (Most/Very/Important/Low priority; -1 verified against the app's code and live-tested 2026-08-30). Low priority is shown in the app only with 'Enable low priority' on in the Priorities strategy; the value is stored regardless. Does not apply to projects: they use the string field priority ('high'/'mid'/'low' = Most/Very/Important; no Low level), not isStarred — set it via update_category_or_project. A permanent 500 = the task does not exist (deleted or wrong ID) — the server responds 500 instead of 404 (verified live 2026-08-29); fetch a fresh ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`frog`	No	Frog: 3=monster, 2=baby, 1=normal, 0=remove
`item_id`	Yes	Task ID
`priority`	No	Priority (isStarred): 3=Most important/red, 2=Very important/orange, 1=Important/yellow, -1=Low priority (down arrow), 0=remove

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.0Aug 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / priority / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "maximum": 3,
-    "minimum": 0,
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 3,
+    "minimum": -1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

changedInput schema / properties / priority / description

Previous value: -"Priority: 3=red/highest, 2=orange, 1=yellow, 0=remove"New value: +"Priority (isStarred): 3=Most important/red, 2=Very important/orange, 1=Important/yellow, -1=Low priority (down arrow), 0=remove"

First observedv1.3.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the isStarred mapping (3/2/1/-1) verified against app code, the 'Enable low priority' strategy caveat, the fact that low priority is stored regardless of display, the project-vs-task distinction, and the non-standard 500 error behavior. This is rich, verified behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers scope, authentication, value semantics, project exclusion, and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Slightly long, but the length is justified by the verified behavioral details that prevent misuse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (two optional markers, a non-obvious isStarred encoding, a project-vs-task distinction, and a non-standard error code), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what the values mean, what doesn't apply, and how to interpret failures. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with their value mappings. The description adds value by explaining the semantic meaning of the priority levels in app terms (Most/Very/Important/Low), the frog marker concept, and the low-priority display caveat. It doesn't repeat the schema's numeric ranges but enriches the meaning, which is exactly what the description should do.

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 a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('priority (P1-P3 or low) or the frog marker on a task'), and explicitly distinguishes from projects ('Does not apply to projects... set it via update_category_or_project'). It clearly identifies the target as an existing TASK and names the sibling tool for the alternative case, so an agent can select it correctly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it applies to tasks, not projects, and names the alternative tool (update_category_or_project) for projects. It also discloses the prerequisite (Full Access Token) and the error condition (permanent 500 = task does not exist), which helps the agent decide when to call this tool and when to fetch a fresh ID instead.

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