Skip to main content
Glama
jakedx6

Helios-9 MCP Server

by jakedx6

update_project

Modify project details like name, description, and status in the Helios-9 project management system to keep information current and accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing project with new information

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe unique identifier of the project to update
nameNoNew name for the project
descriptionNoNew description for the project
statusNoNew status for the project

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that validates input using UpdateProjectSchema, logs the update attempt, calls supabaseService.updateProject to perform the database update, logs success, and returns the updated project object with a confirmation message.
    export const updateProject = requireAuth(async (args: any) => {
      const { project_id, ...updates } = UpdateProjectSchema.parse(args)
      
      logger.info('Updating project', { project_id, updates })
      
      const project = await supabaseService.updateProject(project_id, updates)
      
      logger.info('Project updated successfully', { project_id: project.id })
      
      return {
        project,
        message: `Project "${project.name}" updated successfully`
      }
    })
  • Zod schema defining the input structure for the update_project tool, validating project_id as UUID and optional fields for name, description, and status.
    const UpdateProjectSchema = z.object({
      project_id: z.string().uuid(),
      name: z.string().min(1).max(255).optional(),
      description: z.string().optional(),
      status: z.enum(['active', 'completed', 'archived']).optional(),
      // Removed priority, metadata as they don't exist in the database schema
    })
  • MCPTool object registration defining the 'update_project' tool with its name, description, and JSON input schema compatible with the MCP protocol.
    export const updateProjectTool: MCPTool = {
      name: 'update_project',
      description: 'Update an existing project with new information',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: 'string',
            format: 'uuid',
            description: 'The unique identifier of the project to update'
          },
          name: {
            type: 'string',
            minLength: 1,
            maxLength: 255,
            description: 'New name for the project'
          },
          description: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'New description for the project'
          },
          status: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['active', 'completed', 'archived'],
            description: 'New status for the project'
          },
          // Removed priority, metadata as they don't exist in the database schema
        },
        required: ['project_id']
      }
    }
  • Export of projectHandlers object that maps tool names to their handler functions, including 'update_project: updateProject', used for MCP tool registration.
    export const projectHandlers = {
      list_projects: listProjects,
      get_project: getProject,
      create_project: createProject,
      update_project: updateProject,
      get_project_context: getProjectContext,
      archive_project: archiveProject,
      duplicate_project: duplicateProject,
      get_project_timeline: getProjectTimeline,
      bulk_update_projects: bulkUpdateProjects
    }
  • supabaseService.updateProject helper method that makes an authenticated PATCH request to the backend API endpoint /api/mcp/projects/{projectId} to update the project data.
    async updateProject(projectId: string, updates: Partial<Project>): Promise<Project> {
      const response = await this.request<{ project: Project }>(`/api/mcp/projects/${projectId}`, {
        method: 'PATCH',
        body: JSON.stringify(updates),
      })
      
      return response.project
    }
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 it 'updates' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the update returns, error handling, or side effects, leaving the agent under-informed about critical operational aspects despite the concise purpose statement.

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 the schema fully documents all four parameters (project_id, name, description, status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'new information' maps to these fields, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('existing project'), specifying it modifies with 'new information'. It distinguishes from 'create_project' by focusing on existing projects, but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_document' or 'update_task' beyond the resource type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bulk_update_projects' or 'archive_project'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID) or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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/jakedx6/helios9-MCP-Server'

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