Shortcut MCP Server

Update Shortcut Story

update_story

Update fields on an existing Shortcut story: name, description, labels, owners, followers, workflow state, estimate, and more.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing Shortcut story.

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": {
      "story_id": "<story_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_story"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`confirm`	No	Must be CONFIRM_WRITE to execute
`dry_run`	No
`archived`	No
`estimate`	No
`story_id`	Yes
`label_ids`	No
`owner_ids`	No
`description`	No
`follower_ids`	No
`confirm_archive`	No
`workflow_state_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Solely stating 'Update fields' omits critical traits such as the require_confirm field needing 'CONFIRM_WRITE', the dry_run option, and archiving behavior. No destructive or safety-relevant details are exposed.

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 focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easily scannable, though this conciseness comes at the cost of behavioral depth.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only a bare statement of purpose. It lacks mention of return values, confirmation workflows, partial update semantics, or field interdependencies. Extremely inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 only 8% (only the confirm parameter has a description), and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Saying 'fields' is redundant with the schema. The tool's 12 parameters remain largely undocumented in prose, and the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the verb 'update' and resource 'existing Shortcut story', making the core purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like transition_story_state or archive_story, which also modify stories, so it's not a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transition_story_state, archive_story, or bulk_update_stories. Prerequisites (e.g., story must exist) and exclusions are absent, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Deploy Server