@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_priorities_update

Update priority fields in Taiga, including name, color, order, and closed status. Specify the priority ID to apply partial changes.

Instructions

Update a priorities (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>"
    },
    "name": "taiga_priorities_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID
`name`	No
`color`	No
`order`	No
`is_closed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that updates are partial, meaning only provided fields are changed and omitted fields remain untouched. This is valuable beyond the schema. However, with no annotations, it does not mention permissions, return values, error behavior, or side effects, leaving several transparency gaps.

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 concise with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters. It lacks structured information and contains a grammatical error, reducing clarity. It is brief but not ideally complete.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description must carry more weight. It only provides a minimal action statement and does not describe return values, error conditions, permissions, or the full scope of the update. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only 'id' has a description). The description text does not compensate by explaining the meaning or format of the optional parameters (name, color, order, is_closed). The word 'partial' implies these are updatable fields, but adds no specific semantics.

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 states the action ('Update') and the resource ('priorities'), making it clear that this tool modifies an existing priority. The parenthetical '(partial)' indicates a partial update, which adds useful nuance. However, the grammar 'a priorities' is awkward and it does not list the updatable fields, so it is not as informative as it could be.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create, get, or delete. The verb 'update' implicitly suggests use for modifying existing records, but the description lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server