amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

set_priority

Idempotent

Set or change a task's priority (Most/Very/Important/Low) and frog marker via task ID. Specify priority 3/2/1/-1/0 and frog 3/2/1/0; low priority requires enabling the Priorities strategy.

Instructions

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the Full Access Token requirement, verified isStarred value semantics, the conditional display behavior of low priority while still storing the value, and the server's 500-instead-of-404 error quirk. These are concrete behavioral traits that an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: core function, auth requirement, value semantics, display caveat, project exclusion, and error behavior. Front-loading the purpose and scoping before caveats makes it easy to parse.

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 complexity of the priority/frog semantics, project differences, and server error oddity, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly. An output schema exists for return values, so return-format details are not required here.

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 100% with detailed value mappings for both priority and frog, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds some verification/context beyond the schema but does not significantly extend the meaning of the parameters themselves.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set or change priority (isStarred) and/or the frog marker on an existing TASK.' It scopes itself to tasks and explicitly disambiguates from projects, which use a different field and sibling tool. This clearly distinguishes it from update_task and update_category_or_project.

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 states when the tool applies and when it does not: it applies to TASK priority/frog changes, and it explicitly says 'Does not apply to projects' with the alternative 'set it via update_category_or_project.' It also gives a behavioral cue for invalid IDs (permanent 500) and advises fetching a fresh ID, so an agent knows not to use this tool with stale IDs.

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