Skip to main content
Glama
daanno

Simplicate MCP Server

by daanno

update_task

Modify existing task details in Simplicate business management system. Change task properties, update status, or edit project-related information using task ID and new data.

Instructions

Update a task

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
task_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler case for 'update_task': validates input parameters (task_id and data), calls simplicateService.updateTask, and returns JSON stringified result.
    case 'update_task': {
      if (!toolArgs.task_id || !toolArgs.data) throw new Error('task_id and data required');
      const data = await this.simplicateService.updateTask(toolArgs.task_id, toolArgs.data);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • Tool registration in the listTools response, including name, description, and inputSchema defining required task_id (string) and data (object).
    {
      name: 'update_task',
      description: 'Update a task',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          task_id: { type: 'string' },
          data: { type: 'object' },
        },
        required: ['task_id', 'data'],
      },
    },
  • Type definition for SimplicateTask used in updateTask (data: Partial<SimplicateTask>). Defines structure of task objects.
    export interface SimplicateTask {
      id: string;
      title: string;
      description?: string;
      project?: { id: string; name: string };
      assignee?: { id: string; name: string };
      status: string;
      due_date?: string;
    }
  • Core implementation of updateTask: sends PUT request to Simplicate API endpoint `/projects/task/${taskId}` with update data.
    async updateTask(taskId: string, data: Partial<SimplicateTask>): Promise<SimplicateTask> {
      const response = await this.client.put(`/projects/task/${taskId}`, data);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not indicate whether this is a safe or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this omission is critical and leaves the agent without necessary behavioral context.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it does not waste space or include redundant information, earning a high score for conciseness and structure alone.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters 'task_id' and 'data' are entirely undocumented in structured fields. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it does not explain what 'task_id' refers to, what 'data' should contain, or provide examples. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this fails to meet even baseline expectations.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Update a task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('task') but provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_hours', 'update_invoice', etc., nor does it clarify what aspects of a task can be updated. This minimal statement fails to convey specific purpose beyond the obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'get_task'. Without any contextual cues, an agent cannot infer appropriate usage scenarios, making this score a 1 for complete lack of 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/daanno/simplicate-mcp'

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