@noust-app/mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Existing Objective

update_objective

Modify an existing objective in the active Noust workspace by editing its title, description, deadline, priority, completion status, and linked notes.

Instructions

Modifies an existing objective in the active Noust workspace: edit title, replace or append description, toggle/mark completed, set deadline or priority, and link/unlink notes.

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": {
      "objectiveId": "<objectiveId>"
    },
    "name": "update_objective"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`done`	No	Set completion status to true or false
`title`	No	New title for the objective
`inPath`	No	Set inclusion in Nexus Path
`flagIds`	No	Update flag tags attached to the objective
`deadline`	No	New deadline string (e.g. "YYYY-MM-DD")
`domainId`	No	Domain ID if known
`priority`	No	Set priority status
`workspace`	No	Target workspace name, ID, or directory path. If omitted, targets the workspace in the current working directory.
`toggleDone`	No	Toggle current completion status
`description`	No	New description to replace existing description
`linkNoteIds`	No	Note IDs to add to linked notes
`objectiveId`	Yes	Unique ID of the objective to update
`linkedNoteIds`	No	Complete replacement list of linked note IDs
`unlinkNoteIds`	No	Note IDs to remove from linked notes
`appendDescription`	No	Text to append to the end of the existing description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and for a 15-parameter mutation tool it does very little. It hints at replace-vs-append semantics for description ('replace or append') and link/unlink for notes, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether unlisted fields are preserved, or how linkedNoteIds/linkNoteIds/unlinkNoteIds interact on a single call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, and every clause after the colon maps to a real parameter group rather than filler. No redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify partial-update behavior and the note-linking variants. It covers the field categories adequately but leaves the merge/replace and workspace-targeting behaviors to the schema, which is a real gap for a mutation tool of this size.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful grouping of the edit categories but no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb (Modifies) plus resource (existing objective) and enumerates the actual field-level edits supported, so an agent can distinguish it from create_objective/delete_objective and get_objective without opening any schema. The scope qualifier 'in the active Noust workspace' is also stated up front.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated operations (edit title, toggle done, link/unlink notes), which is enough to know this is the mutation path for existing objectives. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs create_objective/delete_objective, no preconditions (objective must already exist, which workspace it resolves to), and no exclusions.

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