gh-board-mcp

update_activity

Edit the title or description of a draft item in a GitHub Project board by specifying the project number and item ID.

Instructions

Edit the title and/or description of an activity (draft item).

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": {
      "projectNumber": "<projectNumber>",
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "update_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title
`itemId`	Yes	Item id of the activity (from list_activities)
`description`	No	New description/body
`projectNumber`	Yes	Number of the GitHub Project board

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 18, 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Edit' without explaining mutability, idempotency, authorization requirements, or what happens if the activity is not in a draft state. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence of 12 words. Every word is necessary, and it communicates the core action without filler. It is highly efficient.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple update tool, but it lacks context about what constitutes a 'draft item', how to obtain the itemId (though schema references list_activities), and whether both title and description can be updated simultaneously. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, more detail would improve completeness.

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 each parameter's purpose. The description adds no new meaning beyond confirming that title and/or description can be edited. With high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Edit' and identifies the resource as 'an activity (draft item)'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_activity, move_activity, and delete_activity by focusing on modifying existing content.

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 the tool is used when you need to change the title or description of an existing activity. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclude scenarios (e.g., when the activity is not a draft).

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

Deploy Server