@illodev/taiga-mcp

taiga_task_statuses_update

Update task status details such as name, color, order, or closed flag by providing the status ID. Supports partial updates.

Instructions

Update a task statuses (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_task_statuses_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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the update is partial but does not mention permissions, error handling, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is not bloated, though the phrase 'a task statuses' has a grammatical issue and the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 low schema richness, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the purpose, required parameters, and behavior. It only says 'partial', which is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's use and expectations.

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

Parameters1/5

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 saying 'ID'). The description does not compensate; it does not explain that name, color, order, and is_closed are updatable fields or how they relate. The word 'partial' is the only hint, leaving the agent without meaningful parameter 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 uses the verb 'Update' with the resource 'task statuses' and notes 'partial', making it clear this is a partial update operation on an existing task status. This distinguishes it from create/list/get/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with the bulk update order tool.

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 taiga_task_statuses_create, taiga_task_statuses_delete, or the bulk update order variant. The word 'partial' implies updating only some fields, but there is no explicit context 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