delega-mcp

update_task

Modify an existing task's content, due date, priority, project, labels, assignment, or evidence policy. Adjust task details after creation.

Instructions

Update an existing task's fields

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labels`	No	New labels
`content`	No	New task title / content
`task_id`	Yes	The task ID to update
`due_date`	No	New due date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`priority`	No	New priority (1-4)
`project_id`	No	Move to project ID
`description`	No	New description
`evidence_policy`	No	Set 'required' to force completion evidence; null to clear (admin key required to remove a required policy)
`assigned_to_agent_id`	No	Assign to agent ID, or null to unassign

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv1.19.0Sep 11, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_agent_id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_agent_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

removedInput schema / properties / project_id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / project_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```

removedInput schema / properties / task_id / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / task_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.13.1Jul 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / evidence_policy

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "required"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Set 'required' to force completion evidence; null to clear (admin key required to remove a required policy)"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.9.0Jun 10, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / project_id / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / project_id / maximum
```
Removed value: -9007199254740991
```
- removedInput schema / properties / project_id / minimum
```
Removed value: --9007199254740991
```
- removedInput schema / properties / project_id / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```

Changed8 schema fields changedv1.2.1May 1, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedInput schema / properties / assigned_to_agent_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Assign to agent ID, or null to unassign"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / priority / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
addedInput schema / properties / priority / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_id / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_id / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```

addedInput schema / properties / task_id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / task_id / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```

First observedv1.0.3Mar 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not explain whether this is a partial update (are omitted fields left unchanged?), whether clearing a field requires nulls, what permissions are needed, or what happens on conflict — all material for a mutation tool with nine parameters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, correctly placing the verb and scope first. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

For a nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Partial-update semantics, permission requirements, and expected outcome are all absent, leaving the agent to infer critical behavior from the schema alone.

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 already carries its own description (including the admin-key caveat on evidence_policy). The description adds no syntax, format, or field-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case 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.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing task's fields'), so the agent knows this mutates an existing task rather than creating one. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that also modify tasks (assign_task, delegate_task, set_task_state, complete_task, update_task_context), which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as assign_task or set_task_state for state changes. The agent gets no help deciding between this and the many other task-mutating siblings.

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