Skip to main content
Glama
expel-io

Atlassian Goals MCP Server

by expel-io

edit_goal_update

Edit a previously-posted goal update by its ID to fix typos, adjust status/score, correct metric values, or replace the More detail body. Only the fields you provide are changed.

Instructions

Edit a previously-posted goal update — fix a typo, adjust status/score, correct a metric value, replace the More detail body, etc. Identify the update by its ARI (the id returned from post_goal_update or from a goal's updates list). Both goalId and goalUpdateId are required so the tool can resolve the existing note ARI when replacing details.

Only the fields you supply are changed; all others are left alone. At least one of summary/details/status/score/targetDate/metricUpdates is required.

Status/score behaves identically to post_goal_update: on_track/at_risk/off_track derive from a 1–100 score; pending/paused/done/cancelled/archived take only status.

Markdown — both summary and details accept markdown and are converted to ADF before send.

Details replace, not append — when details is supplied, the tool looks up the update's existing "More detail" note and overwrites it. (Townsquare's editUpdate API would otherwise create a second note that the UI doesn't surface.)

Metric updatesedit_goal_update takes metricId (the metric itself), not targetId (the metric target). This is asymmetric with post_goal_update and matches the Townsquare API.

Example

edit_goal_update({
  goalId: "ari:cloud:townsquare:...:goal/abc",
  goalUpdateId: "ari:cloud:townsquare:...:goal-update/xyz",
  summary: "Corrected summary — actually on track, not at risk.",
  status: "on_track"
})

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreNoConfidence score on the 1–100 scale.
dryRunNoIf true, return the resolved mutation payload without submitting
goalIdYesGoal ARI that owns the update (format: ari:cloud:townsquare:{cloudId}:goal/{uuid}). Required so the tool can look up the existing More-detail note when replacing details.
statusNoStatus — same score/non-score rules as post_goal_update.
detailsNoNew "More detail" body (markdown supported). Behavior with existing notes is currently to append a new note; verify if replacement is needed.
summaryNoNew headline (max 280 chars, markdown supported)
targetDateNoNew target date
goalUpdateIdYesGoal update ARI (format: ari:cloud:townsquare:{cloudId}:goal-update/{uuid})
metricUpdatesNoNew current values. Each item uses metricId (NOT targetId — this differs from post_goal_update).
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full transparency burden and exceeds it: it discloses partial-update semantics (only supplied fields change), markdown-to-ADF conversion, details-overwrite behavior (and why), and the metricId vs targetId asymmetry. This goes well beyond structured schema data.

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-organized with sections, a code example, and no filler. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds context about behavior or usage.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers identification, required fields, partial updates, status/score derivation, markdown handling, details replacement, and metricUpdates schema. It leaves nothing ambiguous for invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3; the description adds substantial meaning by explaining why both goalId and goalUpdateId are needed, clarifying that metricUpdates requires metricId rather than targetId, and correcting the schema's ambiguous 'append' note by explicitly stating details replace. This tips the score above baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Edit' with the resource 'goal_update' and lists exact use cases (fix a typo, adjust status/score, correct a metric value, replace body). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing 'previously-posted' and comparing to post_goal_update.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It establishes when to use: for editing an existing update, and contrasts with post_goal_update (the create tool) through status/score rules and metricUpdates asymmetry. It also states the prerequisite that at least one editable field is required. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for different actions (e.g., update_goal for goal properties).

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/expel-io/atlassian-goals-mcp'

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