Skip to main content
Glama
jacob-hartmann

Quire MCP Server

quire.updateTask

Idempotent

Update an existing task by specifying its ID or OID, modifying only the provided fields for name, description, priority, status, dates, assignees, or tags.

Instructions

Update an existing task. Can be identified by project ID + task ID, or by task OID alone. Only provided fields will be updated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe project ID (required when using taskId, not needed when using oid)
taskIdNoThe task ID number within the project
oidNoThe task OID (unique identifier). Use this OR projectId+taskId
nameNoNew task name/title
descriptionNoNew task description in markdown format
priorityNoPriority: -1 (low), 0 (medium), 1 (high), 2 (urgent)
statusNoStatus: 0 (to-do) to 100 (complete)
dueNoDue date in ISO 8601 format (e.g., '2024-12-31')
startNoStart date in ISO 8601 format
assigneesNoReplace all assignees with this list of user IDs
addAssigneesNoUser IDs to add as assignees
removeAssigneesNoUser IDs to remove from assignees
tagsNoReplace all tags with this list of tag IDs
addTagsNoTag IDs to add
removeTagsNoTag IDs to remove
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'Only provided fields will be updated', which is useful but not extensive. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words.

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?

Despite many parameters and no output schema, the description and schema together provide good context. Could elaborate on assignee/tag add/remove behavior, but schema covers it.

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. Description adds identification method info, but the schema already explains parameter semantics well.

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 'Update an existing task' and explains two identification methods, distinguishing it from create/delete siblings.

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 mentions 'Only provided fields will be updated', implying partial updates, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of others. However, the context of sibling tools makes it clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jacob-hartmann/quire-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server