Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ya-tracker-mcp

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_entity_checklist_item

Update a checklist item's text, checked status, assignee, or deadline on a project, portfolio, or goal.

Instructions

Update a checklist item on a project, portfolio, or goal.

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": {
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>",
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_entity_checklist_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoNew text
checkedNoNew checked status
item_idYesChecklist item ID
assigneeNoNew assignee login
deadlineNoNew deadline (YYYY-MM-DD)
entity_idYesEntity ID
entity_typeYes"project", "portfolio", or "goal"

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action and scope. It does not disclose update semantics (partial vs full), null-value behavior, required permissions, or side effects, leaving significant ambiguity.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single clear sentence (12 words) that front-loads the action and scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The schema covers parameters and an output schema exists, but the description alone does not clarify behavioral nuances such as whether null clears fields or whether updates are partial. This is adequate but has clear gaps given the tool's optional parameters.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; parameter details like 'New text' are solely in the schema.

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 verb (update), resource (checklist item), and scope (project, portfolio, or goal). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_checklist_item by specifying the entity context.

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?

The description provides clear context by listing applicable entity types, implying use for entity-level checklist items. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like update_checklist_item or give when-not-to-use scenarios.

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