CVAT MCP

cvat_replace_task_annotations

Replace existing CVAT task annotations with new annotation data. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental loss.

Instructions

Replace task annotations with PUT /api/tasks/{id}/annotations/. Requires confirmReplace=true.

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": {
      "taskId": "<taskId>",
      "annotations": "<annotations>",
      "confirmReplace": "<confirmReplace>"
    },
    "name": "cvat_replace_task_annotations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`taskId`	Yes
`annotations`	Yes	CVAT LabeledDataRequest JSON.
`confirmReplace`	Yes	Must be true because this replaces current task annotations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description indicates the HTTP method and the requirement for confirmReplace, which implies a destructive write. However, it lacks details on the full replacement behavior, idempotency, or return value. Without annotations, it partially addresses the behavioral burden.

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?

Two concise sentences effectively communicate the core action and a key requirement. No wasted words, but it could include more essential details (e.g., what taskId refers to) without becoming verbose.

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 simple replacement tool with no output schema, the description misses critical context: it does not explain that this operation replaces all existing annotations, nor does it reference sibling tools like cvat_get_task_annotations. The agent may not understand the full impact.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value: it restates the confirmReplace requirement and vaguely describes annotations as 'CVAT LabeledDataRequest JSON.' The taskId parameter lacks any description in both schema and description.

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 action ('Replace task annotations') and the HTTP method/PUT endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cvat_attach_task_data, which might also modify annotations.

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?

It mentions the required parameter confirmReplace=true but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to replace all annotations vs. partial updates).

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

Deploy Server