recall-kit

project_update

Create or update a project record with status, summary, and a note on what changed, preserving project continuity across fresh sessions.

Instructions

Create or update a project. status: active | blocked | paused | done. note = what changed.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "project_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`note`	No
`slug`	Yes
`status`	No
`summary`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a full replace or partial merge (i.e., whether omitting name/summary wipes existing values), what permissions are required, or what happens when the slug does not exist — critical 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight fragments with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity borders on under-specification, but nothing is redundant.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. Even though an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the missing update-semantics and parameter coverage leave real gaps.

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 should compensate. It usefully enumerates the status values (active|blocked|paused|done), which the schema lacks as an enum, and explains note, but leaves name, summary, and required slug entirely undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create or update a project.' However, the dual 'create or update' framing overlaps with the sibling project_add, and the description never clarifies that distinction, leaving the agent uncertain which tool performs creation.

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?

Implies upsert-by-slug semantics and hints that note should record 'what changed,' which is light usage context. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus project_add or project_close, and no conditions under which it should not be called.

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

Deploy Server