Skip to main content
Glama

update_intake_work_item

Update an intake work item's triage status (pending, declined, snoozed, accepted, or duplicate). Provide snoozed_till for snoozed or duplicate_to for duplicate statuses.

Instructions

Update an intake work item, including triage status.

Status values: -2 = pending (default/unreviewed) -1 = declined 0 = snoozed (requires snoozed_till date) 1 = accepted (converts intake item to active work item) 2 = duplicate (requires duplicate_to work item ID)

Args: project_id: UUID of the project work_item_id: UUID of the work item (use the issue field from IntakeWorkItem response, not the intake work item ID) status: Triage status (-2=pending, -1=declined, 0=snoozed, 1=accepted, 2=duplicate) snoozed_till: ISO 8601 date string, required when status=0 duplicate_to: UUID of the work item this duplicates, required when status=2 source: Source identifier source_email: Source email address

Returns: Updated IntakeWorkItem object

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNo
statusNo
project_idYes
duplicate_toNo
snoozed_tillNo
source_emailNo
work_item_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
extraNo
inboxNo
issueNo
intakeNo
sourceNo
statusNo
projectNo
workspaceNo
created_atNo
created_byNo
deleted_atNo
updated_atNo
updated_byNo
external_idNo
duplicate_toNo
issue_detailNo
snoozed_tillNo
source_emailNo
external_sourceNo
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains status value semantics, conditional requirements for snoozed_till and duplicate_to, the conversion of accepted intake items to active work items, and the non-obvious work_item_id mapping. It doesn't mention permissions or reversibility, but covers key side effects.

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 description is well-structured with a summary, status values, args, and returns sections. There is some redundancy in restating status values in the arg list, but the organization is clear and each section earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter update tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers all required information: parameter types, conditional dependencies, return type, and special behavior. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has no parameter descriptions, so this description is essential. It adds meaning to every parameter, including the exact status enum values, conditional dates, and the crucial work_item_id gotcha. This far exceeds baseline.

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 the tool updates an intake work item and specifically handles triage status. The resource is specific (intake work item) and the verb is clear (update), differentiating it from update_work_item and other intake tools.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for intake work items and gives a critical guidance to use the 'issue' field as work_item_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is well-scoped.

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/leigangzhang/plane-mcp-server-adapter'

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