Skip to main content
Glama
bim-ba

ycli

by bim-ba
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Edit Tracker checklist item

tracker_checklists_update
Idempotent

Edit a single checklist item on a Tracker issue, updating its text, checked state, assignee, or deadline. Requires item_id from checklists_list and returns the issue with the updated checklist.

Instructions

Edit one checklist item on a Tracker issue (text, checked state, assignee, deadline).

Get item_id from checklists_list. Returns the issue with its updated checklist.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesTyped request body for ``PATCH /issues/{key}/checklistItems/{item_id}`` (edit an item).
item_idYesChecklist item id, from ``checklists_list``.
issue_keyYesIssue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.122.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / properties / deadline / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": false,
-    "description": "Typed ``deadline`` block for a checklist item or key result write body.",
-    "properties": {
-      "date": {
-        "description": "Deadline date, YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sss±hhmm.",
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      "deadlineType": {
-        "default": "date",
-        "description": "Deadline kind: 'date' or 'quarter'.",
-        "type": "string"
-      }
-    },
-    "required": [
-      "date"
-    ],
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "description": "Typed ``deadline`` block for a checklist item or key result write body.",
+    "properties": {
+      "date": {
+        "description": "Deadline date, YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sss±hhmm.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "deadlineType": {
+        "description": "Deadline kind: 'date' or 'quarter'.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "date",
+      "deadlineType"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / issue_key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / item_id / description
      Previous value: -"Checklist item id, from ``checklists_get``."New value: +"Checklist item id, from ``checklists_list``."
    • removedInput schema / properties / key
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "key",
-  "item_id",
-  "body"
-]New value: +[
+  "issue_key",
+  "item_id",
+  "body"
+]
  2. First observedv0.67.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety bar is lower. The description usefully adds the return behavior ('Returns the issue with its updated checklist'), which matters because no output schema exists, but it does not clarify partial-update semantics (all body fields default to null).

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the action and scope front-loaded and the prerequisite/return details following. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

For a 3-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source of the item id, and the return value, and annotations cover the safety profile. It could go one step further on partial-update behavior and how it differs from the near-duplicate sibling.

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% and the nested body object documents every field, so the description's high-level field list is largely redundant. The 'item_id from checklists_list' note merely restates the schema description, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit one checklist item on a Tracker issue') and enumerates the editable facets (text, checked state, assignee, deadline). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling tracker_entities_checklists_items_update, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete prerequisite/workflow pointer: 'Get item_id from checklists_list', which is genuine routing guidance to a sibling. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over the overlapping entities-checklists variants, or any permission prerequisites.

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