google-workspace-mcp

tasks_update

Update a task's title, notes, due date, or status. Set status to 'needsAction' or 'completed'.

Instructions

Update a task. Status can be 'needsAction' or 'completed'.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "tasks_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`due`	No
`notes`	No
`title`	No
`status`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`tasklist_id`	No	@default

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that status accepts 'needsAction' or 'completed', but omits whether omitted fields are preserved or overwritten, required permissions, or effects on other fields. 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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds information. The second sentence provides concrete allowed status values without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too thin for a 6-parameter mutation tool. It doesn't clarify the update semantics (partial vs full), handling of default values, or interrelationship with tasks_list/tasks_create. The tool's capabilities are drastically under-described.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains valid values for 'status' but leaves 'task_id', 'tasklist_id', 'due', 'notes', and 'title' unexplained. With 6 parameters and only 1 addressed, this is insufficient.

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?

'Update a task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating modification of an existing task. It distinguishes from sibling delete/move/create/list tools, though it doesn't explicitly address overlap with tasks_move or tasks_clear_completed.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest other tools for related operations. The description only states the action without contextual use cases.

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

Deploy Server