Shortcut MCP Server

Update Shortcut Epic

update_epic

Update any field on an existing Shortcut epic, including name, state, description, labels, owners, and archived status.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing Shortcut epic.

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": {
      "epic_id": "<epic_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_epic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`state`	No
`confirm`	No	Must be CONFIRM_WRITE to execute
`dry_run`	No
`epic_id`	Yes
`archived`	No
`label_ids`	No
`owner_ids`	No
`description`	No
`confirm_archive`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 burden. It only says 'Update fields on an existing Shortcut epic,' with no mention of side effects, confirmation requirement, dry-run capability, or permission needs. The schema includes a confirm parameter, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, so it loses a point for appropriate sizing.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context about confirmation, dry run, archiving, and required fields, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description uses the generic term 'fields' and names none of the 10 parameters. With schema description coverage of only 10%, the description fails to compensate by explaining critical parameters like epic_id, confirm, dry_run, or state.

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 fields on an existing Shortcut epic, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_epic, get_epic, and delete_epic.

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 verb 'update' implies use for modifying existing epics, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server