Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black

update_project

Modify project details like name, description, visibility, or status in OpenProject. Use this tool to edit existing projects by providing the project ID and lock version.

Instructions

Update an existing project.

Args:
    project_id: Project identifier or ID
    lock_version: Current lock version (get from project first)
    name: New project name
    description: New project description in markdown
    public: Whether project is public
    active: Whether project is active

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
lock_versionYes
nameNo
descriptionNo
publicNo
activeNo

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the update_project tool logic by constructing a payload and patching the project via OpenProjectClient.
    async def update_project(
        project_id: str,
        lock_version: int,
        name: str | None = None,
        description: str | None = None,
        public: bool | None = None,
        active: bool | None = None,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Update an existing project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project identifier or ID
            lock_version: Current lock version (get from project first)
            name: New project name
            description: New project description in markdown
            public: Whether project is public
            active: Whether project is active
    
        Returns:
            Updated project object
        """
        client = OpenProjectClient()
    
        try:
            payload: dict[str, Any] = {
                "lockVersion": lock_version,
            }
    
            if name is not None:
                payload["name"] = name
    
            if description is not None:
                payload["description"] = build_formattable(description)
    
            if public is not None:
                payload["public"] = public
    
            if active is not None:
                payload["active"] = active
    
            result = await client.patch(f"projects/{project_id}", data=payload)
            return result
        finally:
            await client.close()
  • Registration of the update_project tool via @mcp.tool() decorator in the main server, which delegates to the core implementation in projects module.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def update_project(
        project_id: str,
        lock_version: int,
        name: str | None = None,
        description: str | None = None,
        public: bool | None = None,
        active: bool | None = None,
    ):
        """Update an existing project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project identifier or ID
            lock_version: Current lock version (get from project first)
            name: New project name
            description: New project description in markdown
            public: Whether project is public
            active: Whether project is active
        """
        return await projects.update_project(
            project_id=project_id,
            lock_version=lock_version,
            name=name,
            description=description,
            public=public,
            active=active,
        )
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 mentions 'lock_version' which implies optimistic concurrency control, adding some behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what happens on update failure, whether partial updates are allowed, permission requirements, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each parameter explanation is brief and to the point. There's no wasted text, though the formatting with 'Args:' header and bullet-like structure could be slightly more polished.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context about permissions, error handling, and response format. It covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'what happens after'. Given the complexity, it's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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 semantic meaning for all 6 parameters beyond their titles, explaining what each represents (e.g., 'Current lock version (get from project first)', 'New project description in markdown'). This adds substantial value over the bare schema, though it doesn't explain nullability or default behaviors fully.

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 'existing project', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_work_package' or 'list_projects' by focusing on modification rather than creation or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_comment' or 'update_work_package' which are also update operations on different resources.

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 like 'update_work_package' or 'update_comment'. It mentions 'get from project first' for lock_version, which is a prerequisite hint but not explicit usage context. There's no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools.

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/dev-in-black/openproject-mcp'

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