Akiflow MCP Server

edit-task

Update an existing task's details including title, description, date, priority, and status. Modify task properties like tags and list assignment.

Instructions

Update an existing task

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "edit-task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Task UUID (required)
`title`	No
`description`	No
`date`	No
`datetime`	No
`due_date`	No
`duration`	No
`priority`	No
`status`	No
`done`	No
`listId`	No
`tags_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update an existing task', which implies mutation but fails to mention permissions, side effects, or whether partial updates are supported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence, which is concise. However, it does not leverage the brevity to provide additional value beyond the tool name, making it minimally adequate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It omits details on field update behavior, validation, defaults, and return values, which are critical for correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is only 8% (only 'id' described). The description offers no explanation for the 11 other parameters, such as the meaning of priority values or status codes, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 'Update an existing task' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (task). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add-task' (create) and 'get-tasks' (read), leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'mark-done' or 'schedule-task'. The description does not specify contexts where edit-task is preferred or when to avoid it.

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