Skip to main content
Glama

update_projects

Update existing OmniFocus projects by specifying IDs and optional fields to modify name, notes, status, due dates, tags, recurrence, and more. Supports bulk updates with per-item parameters.

Instructions

Update one or more projects. Each item has id (required) plus fields to change.

Parameters (per item):

  • id: str (required)

  • project_name, note, folder_path: str -- note: replaces rich text

  • project_type: str; sequential: bool (deprecated)

  • status: str -- "active", "on_hold", "done", "dropped"

  • review_interval_value: int + review_interval_unit: str ("day"/"week"/"month"/"year"); review_interval_weeks: int (deprecated)

  • last_reviewed: str -- ISO or "now" (recalculates next_review_date from review interval)

  • next_review_date: str -- set AFTER last_reviewed to override the calculated date

  • completed_by_children: bool

  • due_date, defer_date, planned_date: str -- ISO or "" to clear

  • flagged: bool

  • estimated_minutes: int

  • tags: list[str] -- full replacement (conflicts with add_tags/remove_tags)

  • add_tags, remove_tags: list[str]

  • recurrence: str -- RRULE or "" to clear; repetition_method: str -- "fixed", "start_after_completion", "due_after_completion"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: note replacement of rich text, tag replacement vs. add/remove, deprecated fields, and date calculation interactions (e.g., last_reviewed recalculates next_review_date). However, it does not cover authorization or side effects of mutating multiple projects.

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 efficient and well-structured with a leading sentence and bullet points. It front-loads the purpose and groups related parameters. However, it is somewhat lengthy due to the high number of parameters, which is justified.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity (22+ parameters, array input) and lack of annotations, the description covers all parameters and their interactions. It also explains deprecated fields. The output schema is not referenced but is present in the tool definition. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or success feedback.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter with type hints and special behaviors (e.g., 'ISO or "" to clear', 'full replacement', 'deprecated'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update one or more projects' with a required 'id' per item, distinguishing this tool from related tools like 'create_projects' and 'delete_projects'.

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 use for updating existing projects, but does not explicitly state when to use instead of alternatives like 'create_projects' or 'update_tasks'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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/s-morgan-jeffries/omnifocus-mcp'

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