Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
codex-claude-bridge-mcp

codex-claude-bridge-mcp

by nevzoom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_task

Modify task status, owner, or result to reflect current progress and keep Codex and Claude Code aligned on shared task board.

Instructions

Update a task's status, owner, or final result.

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
ownerNo
resultNo
statusNo
task_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'Update' (indicating mutation) but does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, whether partial updates are allowed, or what the response contains. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is under-specified. It lacks information about parameter semantics, constraints, return values, and relationships to sibling tools, making it minimally viable but incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names status, owner, and final result but provides no details on allowed values (e.g., status enum) or what 'result' should contain. The description adds only superficial mapping to parameters.

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 uses a specific verb (Update) and resource (task), and explicitly lists the updatable fields (status, owner, final result). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_task, list_tasks, and claim_task, which have different actions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies its use for modifying existing tasks by listing the fields, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over claim_task (which likely also changes owner) or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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