Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Todolist MCP Server

Todolist MCP Server

by jgn35
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Update Task

update_task

Modify an existing task by its UUID, updating optional fields such as title, status, priority, due date, or description.

Instructions

Update a task.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoNew title (optional)
statusNoNew status (optional)
task_idYesTask UUID
due_dateNoNew due date (optional)
priorityNoNew priority (optional)
descriptionNoNew description (optional)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but 'Update a task.' only restates the operation. It does not mention partial-update semantics, null handling, error behavior, or whether the updated task is returned.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It contains no content beyond the tool name, so the brevity does not contribute value.

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 six parameters and no annotations, a one-sentence description is not sufficiently complete. It omits key invocation context such as whether null clears fields, whether status changes conflict with complete_task, and what happens on invalid task_id.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter described in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema adequately documents each optional field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update a task.' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name/title and provides no additional semantic content. It identifies the resource but does not distinguish this tool from complete_task or create_task beyond the name itself.

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 is given about when to use update_task versus alternatives like create_task, complete_task, or delete_task. The description contains no context about partial field updates or how this differs from completing a task.

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