@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_epics_update

Partially update an epic by ID and version. Change subject, description, tags, color, or assignment while preventing conflicts via version check.

Instructions

Update an epic (partial).

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>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_epics_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Epic ID
`tags`	No
`color`	No
`subject`	No
`version`	Yes	Current version for conflict check
`assigned_to`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 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 alone must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'update' and 'partial', but omits important context such as version conflict checking, permissions required, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The schema mentions the version parameter but the description does not reinforce that.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and immediately states the core action. While it is very brief, it is appropriately front-loaded and could easily accommodate more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, plus the sparse schema coverage, the description is too incomplete. It doesn't describe the return value, prerequisites, or how partial updates behave in practice. An agent might be unsure whether it can update specific fields or how the version conflict works.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low at 29%, with only id and version having descriptions. The description does not explain the other five parameters (tags, color, subject, assigned_to, description) nor does it meaningfully compensate for the gap. The 'partial' hint implies that only provided fields change, but that's minimally helpful.

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 clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'an epic', and the qualifier 'partial' specifies that only provided fields are modified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, get, and delete for epics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'partial' hints at usage, but it does not mention when not to use it or point to related tools like taiga_epics_create for new epics.

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

Deploy Server