grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tasks.tasklists.update

Update a specified task list for the authenticated user using a JSON TaskList body over PUT; returns the API response as JSON.

Instructions

Updates the authenticated user's specified task list [HTTP PUT] — updates the resource; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON TaskList object accepting etag, id, kind, selfLink, title, updated; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, insert, list, patch.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`tasklist`	Yes	[URL path segment] Task list identifier.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON TaskList object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type TaskList: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`etag`	No
`kind`	No
`title`	No
`updated`	No
`selfLink`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON TaskList object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type TaskList: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "etag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "selfLink": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "updated": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / tasklist / description

Previous value: -"Task list identifier."New value: +"[URL path segment] Task list identifier."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "etag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "selfLink": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "updated": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does meaningful work: it declares the operation is a PUT-based resource replacement, that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the API response resource as JSON. It omits authorization scope requirements and idempotency/replace-vs-merge semantics, which matter for a PUT.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, and every clause adds information. It is dense and em-dash-chained, with return-value details that are somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, it covers the safety-profile behavior, request body construction, and return type, which is the important surface. Missing is only the replace-semantics consequence (fields not supplied being cleared), which is the key risk of a PUT over patch.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in structured form. The description restates the TaskList body fields (etag, id, kind, selfLink, title, updated) and the params/body_file routing, adding no meaning beyond the schema — 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 ('Updates the authenticated user's specified task list') with the HTTP method and scope. It enumerates the sibling operations over the same resource (delete, get, insert, list, patch) but never says what distinguishes update from patch, so full sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

Usage is only implied: the readonly refusal tells the agent one context where this fails, and the sibling list hints that patch is the partial-update alternative, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of patch when...' guidance.

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

Deploy Server