gryzzly-mcp

update_project

Idempotent

Change an existing Gryzzly project's name, code, status, dates, customer, managers, contributors, visibility, tags, groups, or billability; the current start date is reused when omitted.

Instructions

Change a project. Gryzzly requires a start date on every update, so the current one is sent when none is given.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	A new code.
`name`	No	A new name.
`tags`	No	Tag identifiers. Replaces the current list.
`end_at`	No	A new end date.
`groups`	No	Group identifiers. Replaces the current list.
`status`	No	A new status.
`project`	Yes	The project to change, by name, code or id.
`customer`	No	A new customer, by name or id.
`managers`	No	The managers, by name, email or id. Replaces the current list.
`start_at`	No	A new start date. Gryzzly requires one on every update; the current one is sent when this is absent.
`visibility`	No	A new visibility.
`is_billable`	No	Whether the project is billable.
`contributors`	No	The contributors, by name, email or id. Replaces the current list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The project's identifier.
`code`	No	The project's short code.
`name`	No	The project's name.
`note`	No	The project note.
`tags`	No	The tags attached to the project.
`end_at`	No	When the project is supposed to end.
`groups`	No	The groups assigned to the project.
`status`	No	One of `active`, `done`, `archived`.
`managers`	No	The users managing the project.
`start_at`	No	When the project starts.
`created_at`	No	When the project was created.
`updated_at`	No	When the project was last updated.
`visibility`	No	`public` or `private`.
`customer_id`	No	The customer this project belongs to, when any.
`is_billable`	No	Whether the project is billable.
`contributors`	No	The users allowed to declare on a private project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: Gryzzly requires a start date and the current one is silently resent when omitted. That is real added context, though it stops short of describing permission needs or what happens on partial failures.

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 sentences; the purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence is the single non-obvious constraint. Efficient, though the second sentence is largely a restatement of the start_at parameter description rather than new information.

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 13-parameter partial-update tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description gives enough to invoke correctly, with the schema handling field-level semantics. It could note that unspecified fields remain unchanged, but that is inferable from the optional/nullable parameters.

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 one of the 13 parameters is already documented, including the same start-date fallback note, the enum meanings for status/visibility, and the 'replaces the current list' semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

"Change a project" gives a clear verb + resource, and the name plus siblings (update_task, update_customer) make the target unambiguous. It does not enumerate what fields are updatable, but the schema does that at 100% coverage. No explicit sibling differentiation, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The use case is implied by the name and reinforced by the start-date constraint note, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use or guidance on prerequisites (permissions required to change a project). Adequate but thin.

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