Update an existing OmniFocus task by changing its name, note, due date, or flagged status using its task ID.
Update an existing task in OmniFocus. (Standard version: changes via SQLite won't sync until OmniFocus restart)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New task name | |
| note | No | New task note | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID (required) | |
| dueDate | No | New due date in ISO format | |
| flagged | No | Set flagged status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a specific behavioral trait: changes via SQLite won't sync until restart, which is valuable. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like reversibility, failure modes, or permissions. For a mutation tool, this is partial coverage—useful but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical caveat. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the caveat is relevant and separated clearly. Every word earns its place with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and a key sync behavior. However, it does not mention how to obtain the required taskId, potential error conditions, or the effect on existing fields when some are omitted. The sync note is a good start, but more context could be added for a complete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already explains each field. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or relationships. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no further value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action clearly: 'Update an existing task in OmniFocus.' The verb 'update' and resource 'task' are specific, and 'existing' distinguishes it from create. The caveat about SQLite sync adds context without confusion. Sibling tools like create/complete/get are clearly distinct from this update operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. The purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer it for updates, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., needing a taskId from get_tasks). The sync caveat hints at a usage consideration but does not direct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.