Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Things MCP Server

Things MCP Server

by hald
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_todo

Modify existing to-do items in the Things app by updating titles, notes, schedules, deadlines, tags, status, and project/heading assignments. Streamline task management with precise editing capabilities.

Instructions

Update an existing todo in Things

Args: id: ID of the todo to update title: New title notes: New notes when: New schedule deadline: New deadline tags: New tags completed: Mark as completed canceled: Mark as canceled list: The title of a project or area to move the to-do into list_id: The ID of a project or area to move the to-do into (takes precedence over list) heading: The heading title to move the to-do under heading_id: The heading ID to move the to-do under (takes precedence over heading)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_todo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
canceledNo
completedNo
deadlineNo
headingNo
heading_idNo
idYes
listNo
list_idNo
notesNo
tagsNo
titleNo
whenNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
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. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't describe permission requirements, whether partial updates are supported, what happens when moving todos between lists/headings, or error conditions. The description only lists parameters without explaining the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose statement, but the parameter documentation is lengthy (12 items). While each parameter explanation is concise, the overall structure could be improved by grouping related parameters or providing more conceptual guidance before the detailed list.

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 12 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but important aspects like error handling, partial update behavior, and permission requirements remain undocumented.

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?

The description provides clear semantic explanations for all 12 parameters beyond their titles in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies precedence rules ('takes precedence over list/heading'), explains what each field controls, and distinguishes between title-based and ID-based parameters. This significantly compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Update an existing todo in Things' which specifies the verb (update), resource (todo), and system (Things). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'update_project' or explain how this differs from other update operations in the system.

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_project' or when to use it versus creating new todos with 'add_todo'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for updating versus other operations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools