YouGile MCP

Yougile Update Task

yougile_update_task

Edit a task by updating its title, description, assignees, deadline, planned hours, completion status, archive flag, color, or checklist items. Provide the task number and specify only the fields to change.

Instructions

Edit a task: title, description (replace it, or append to it), assignees (by name), deadline, planned hours, completion, archive, color, checklist items. Only the given fields change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task`	Yes	Task number like ID-123 or DEV-12, or its id
`check`	No	Checklist items to mark done
`color`	No
`start`	No	Date "YYYY-MM-DD" or "DD.MM.YYYY", optionally with " HH:MM"
`title`	No
`confirm`	No	Set true only after the user explicitly approved a write into a client-facing project (needed only when the tool answered confirmation_required).
`uncheck`	No
`archived`	No
`deadline`	No	Date, or "none" to remove the deadline
`add_items`	No	New checklist items
`assignees`	No	Replace assignees
`completed`	No
`plan_hours`	No
`description`	No	Replaces the description
`add_assignees`	No
`remove_assignees`	No
`append_description`	No	Text to add at the end of the description, keeping what is there

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.18.0Sep 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / append_description

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Text to add at the end of the description, keeping what is there"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the minimal destructiveHint=false annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'Only the given fields change' discloses partial-update semantics, and it distinguishes replace vs append for description and 'by name' for assignees. This helps the agent predict side effects without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence packs the full editable-field inventory plus the partial-update rule without filler. Every clause earns its place, and the key behavioral note comes at the end for emphasis.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 17-parameter written tool with no output schema and only a light annotation set, the description covers the essential semantics well: what can be edited, how assignees are matched, and that unspecified fields are untouched. It does not state the return value or discuss the confirm/confirmation flow, but the schema documents the confirm parameter, and the field inventory is complete enough for safe invocation.

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?

With only 53% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping the field list to parameters (title, description, assignees, deadline, plan_hours, completed, archived, color, checklist items) and adding semantics like 'assignees (by name)' and 'description (replace it, or append to it)'. Most importantly, 'Only the given fields change' clarifies that null defaults mean no-op rather than clearing the field.

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 opens with 'Edit a task' — a specific verb plus resource — and then inventories the editable attributes. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like yougile_create_task, yougile_move_task, and yougile_log_time, so an agent can select it without inspecting the schema.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion such as 'for moving tasks use yougile_move_task'. 'Edit a task' implies the general use case, but the description never articulates selection criteria or prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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

Yougile Update Task

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools