Skip to main content
Glama
cdmx-in
by cdmx-in

update_task_status

Change task status in Goodday project management by providing task ID, user ID, new status ID, and optional comment to track progress updates.

Instructions

Update the status of a task.

Args: task_id: The ID of the task to update user_id: User on behalf of whom API will execute update status_id: New status ID message: Optional comment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
user_idYes
status_idYes
messageNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'update_task_status' tool. It constructs a payload with user ID, status ID, and optional message, then makes a PUT request to the Goodday API endpoint /task/{task_id}/status using the make_goodday_request helper. Handles errors and returns success message.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def update_task_status(task_id: str, user_id: str, status_id: str, message: Optional[str] = None) -> str:
        """Update the status of a task.
    
        Args:
            task_id: The ID of the task to update
            user_id: User on behalf of whom API will execute update
            status_id: New status ID
            message: Optional comment
        """
        data = {
            "userId": user_id,
            "statusId": status_id
        }
        
        if message:
            data["message"] = message
        
        result = await make_goodday_request(f"task/{task_id}/status", "PUT", data)
        
        if not result:
            return "Unable to update task status: No response received"
        
        if isinstance(result, dict) and "error" in result:
            return f"Unable to update task status: {result.get('error', 'Unknown error')}"
        
        return "Task status updated successfully"
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe what happens during status updates: whether this triggers notifications, changes task visibility, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are concise and directly relevant. While efficient, the structure could be slightly improved by grouping required vs optional parameters more clearly, but overall it's well-organized with minimal waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after the update, what the return value might be, error conditions, or behavioral implications. For a tool that modifies task state, this leaves too many contextual gaps for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic semantic meaning for all 4 parameters beyond their titles, explaining what each represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (what valid status_id values are, how task_id/user_id are formatted), constraints, or examples. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('status of a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_task_comment' or 'create_task' by focusing specifically on status modification rather than creation or commenting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential status-related alternatives that might not exist in the sibling list.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this updates task status, there's no mention of prerequisites, when status updates are appropriate versus using 'add_task_comment', or any context about status transitions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone without explicit guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cdmx-in/goodday-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server