MCP WorkBoard CrunchTools

Workboard Update Activity Tool

workboard_update_activity_tool

Update an existing WorkBoard action item's state, priority, owner, due date, effort, notes, or description. Verifies the item first and updates only supplied fields.

Instructions

Update an existing WorkBoard action item.

Performs read-before-write to confirm the action item exists. Only provided fields are updated. State must be "next", "doing", "done", or "pause". Priority must be "low", "med", or "high". Effort must be "easy", "medium", or "huge".

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ai_note`	No	New notes or body text (optional)
`ai_owner`	No	New owner user ID or email (optional)
`ai_state`	No	New state: next, doing, done, or pause (optional)
`ai_column`	No	Custom Kanban column ID to move the card to (optional). Workstreams can define custom columns within each state.
`ai_effort`	No	New effort: easy, medium, or huge (optional)
`activity_id`	Yes	Action item ID (positive integer)
`ai_due_date`	No	New due date as UNIX timestamp string (optional)
`ai_priority`	No	New priority: low, med, or high (optional)
`ai_description`	No	New description — shown as the card title (optional)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.0Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / activity_id / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
Addedv0.7.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: a read-before-write existence check and partial-field update semantics. It does not mention permissions/auth requirements or what happens on a failed lookup, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the behavioral notes. Efficient overall, though the trailing enumeration of valid state/priority/effort values duplicates schema content and is mildly redundant.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, the partial-update semantics, and the read-before-write validation. What remains missing is auth/permission context and failure behavior, which matters given no annotations exist.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the state/priority/effort allowed values, which adds essentially nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 definition opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Update an existing WorkBoard action item.' Combined with the tool name, this clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_workstream_tool, update_user_tool, and create_activity_tool. An agent can tell exactly what object this mutates.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It clarifies the semantics of the operation ('Only provided fields are updated'), which implies partial-update usage, but never states when to reach for this tool versus get_activity or create_activity, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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

Deploy Server