Skip to main content
Glama
qpiai

Zoho Projects MCP Server

by qpiai

update_task

Modify task details in Zoho Projects by updating name, description, priority, or dates to reflect project changes and maintain accurate tracking.

Instructions

Update a task

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
task_idYesTask ID
nameNoTask name
descriptionNoTask description
priorityNoTask priority
start_dateNoStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
end_dateNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD)

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'update_task' tool. It extracts project_id, task_id, and other update data from params, makes a PATCH request to the Zoho API endpoint for the specific task, and returns a formatted success response with the API response data.
    private async updateTask(params: any) {
      const { project_id, task_id, ...taskData } = params;
      const data = await this.makeRequest(
        `/portal/${this.config.portalId}/projects/${project_id}/tasks/${task_id}`,
        "PATCH",
        taskData
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Task updated successfully:\n${JSON.stringify(data, null, 2)}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The input schema definition for the 'update_task' tool, specifying required project_id and task_id, and optional fields like name, description, priority, start_date, end_date.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        project_id: { type: "string", description: "Project ID" },
        task_id: { type: "string", description: "Task ID" },
        name: { type: "string", description: "Task name" },
        description: { type: "string", description: "Task description" },
        priority: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Task priority",
          enum: ["none", "low", "medium", "high"],
        },
        start_date: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)",
        },
        end_date: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
      },
      required: ["project_id", "task_id"],
  • src/index.ts:343-365 (registration)
    The tool registration object in the list_tools response, defining name, description, and inputSchema for 'update_task'.
    {
      name: "update_task",
      description: "Update a task",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          project_id: { type: "string", description: "Project ID" },
          task_id: { type: "string", description: "Task ID" },
          name: { type: "string", description: "Task name" },
          description: { type: "string", description: "Task description" },
          priority: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Task priority",
            enum: ["none", "low", "medium", "high"],
          },
          start_date: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)",
          },
          end_date: { type: "string", description: "End date (YYYY-MM-DD)" },
        },
        required: ["project_id", "task_id"],
      },
  • src/index.ts:578-579 (registration)
    The dispatch case in the CallToolRequestSchema handler that routes 'update_task' calls to the updateTask method.
    case "update_task":
      return await this.updateTask(params);
  • Identical handler function for 'update_task' in the HTTP server variant.
    private async updateTask(params: any) {
      const { project_id, task_id, ...taskData } = params;
      const data = await this.makeRequest(
        `/portal/${this.config.portalId}/projects/${project_id}/tasks/${task_id}`,
        "PATCH",
        taskData
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Task updated successfully:\n${JSON.stringify(data, null, 2)}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
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. 'Update a task' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 maximally concise with a single three-word phrase. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description is perfectly structured for its minimal content.

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?

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails operationally, what values can be changed, how the system responds, or any behavioral characteristics. The combination of mutation nature and lack of structured metadata demands more descriptive content than provided.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify semantics. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation coming entirely from the schema, not the description.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Update a task' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. While it does specify the resource ('task'), it lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling update tools like update_issue or update_project. This provides only basic orientation without meaningful elaboration.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like update_issue, update_project, and create_task available, there's no indication of when task updates are appropriate versus creating new tasks or updating other entities. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations are mentioned.

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/qpiai/zoho-projects-mcp'

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