Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
OpenProject CE MCP

OpenProject CE MCP

by jtauschl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_meeting

Destructive

Update a meeting's title, time, duration, location, or state while leaving omitted fields unchanged; preview changes before applying them.

Instructions

Update one meeting's details; omitted fields stay unchanged.

Requires OpenProject 17.4+. The meeting's agenda is changed with the agenda item and section tools, and a recurring series' schedule with update_recurring_meeting; for an occurrence of a series this changes only that occurrence. With notifications on, a change of title, time, duration or location emails the invited participants (not for a closed or cancelled meeting). From 17.8, an update that takes a one-time meeting out of draft or turns notifications on also sends the invitations; 17.4 to 17.7 send no invitations on update. Changing participants is not supported: participant_user_refs is rejected.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stateNoMeeting state as get_meeting reports it, e.g. "open", "in_progress" or "closed".
titleNoMeeting title, at most 255 characters.
notifyNotrue lets OpenProject email the invited participants about this meeting; for an occurrence of a series the series' setting applies.
confirmNofalse: preview only, nothing changes. true: applies it; get the user's approval of the preview first.
sharingNoOnly for meeting templates: "none", "descendants" or "system"; leave it out for a meeting.
durationNoISO 8601 duration in hours and minutes, e.g. "PT1H30M".
locationNoFree-text location or meeting link, at most 255 characters.
meeting_idYesMeeting id, from list_meetings.
start_timeNoISO 8601 date-time with offset, e.g. 2026-12-01T09:00:00Z.
lock_versionNoThe lock_version from get_meeting; the update is rejected if the meeting changed since. Omit it to skip this check.
participant_user_refsNoRejected: OpenProject 17.4 and 17.5 would add a user a second time and cannot remove anyone, and only administrators can read the server version that tells the releases apart. Change the participants in OpenProject.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.4

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag it as destructive/non-idempotent/open-world; the description adds substantial side-effect detail the annotations cannot convey — which field changes trigger participant emails, that closed/cancelled meetings are exempt, version-dependent invitation behavior (17.8 vs 17.4–17.7), and the OpenProject 17.4+ minimum. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a write tool needs.

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?

The core partial-update contract is front-loaded, followed by related-resource routing, then side-effect/version caveats. Every clause carries information, but the version-conditioned paragraph (17.4–17.7 vs 17.8) is dense and would read better as a tighter conditional.

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?

Covers mutation scope, alternatives, notification side effects, version requirements, and an unsupported parameter — thorough for an 11-parameter write tool with no output schema. What is missing is any statement about the response, notably the preview result the schema's confirm parameter implies, which the description never mentions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by explaining cross-field semantics the schema does not — the title/time/duration/location fields as the email-triggering set, notify inheriting the series setting for occurrences, and participant_user_refs being rejected with the version reason. It does not add format detail for state/sharing/lock_version, but those are already documented in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Update one meeting's details") plus the partial-update contract ("omitted fields stay unchanged"). It then explicitly separates concerns from siblings: agenda via agenda item/section tools, series schedule via update_recurring_meeting, single-occurrence edits for series. An agent can distinguish this from update_recurring_meeting and update_meeting_agenda_item without reading any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit routing rules for alternatives (agenda item/section tools, update_recurring_meeting) and states a hard exclusion: participant changes are not supported and participant_user_refs is rejected. The occurrence-vs-series scoping rule tells the agent exactly which meeting object to target.

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