Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ClickUp MCP Server

ClickUp MCP Server

by azukhrufy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

update_goal

Update an existing ClickUp goal by modifying its name, description, due date, color, or owners.

Instructions

Update an existing ClickUp goal.

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": {
      "goal_id": "<goal_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_goal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name of the goal
colorNoNew hex color for the goal
ownersNoArray of owner user IDs
goal_idYesThe ID of the goal
due_dateNoNew due date as ms timestamp
descriptionNoNew description
multiple_ownersNoAllow multiple owners

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'update an existing goal'. It does not disclose whether the update is partial (only specified fields), what happens to omitted fields, permissions required, return behavior, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an update tool.

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 a single, streamlined sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse, though it lacks detailed structure or additional context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain partial update semantics, which fields are optional, expected response, or any caveats. For a tool of this complexity, more context is necessary for safe and correct usage.

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?

All 7 parameters are already described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It also adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as value formats or constraints, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing ClickUp goal' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (ClickUp goal), and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete sibling tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_goal or delete_goal. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools