google-workspace-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

task_update

Update a Google Task's title, due date, notes, or status by account and task ID; set status to completed to mark it done.

Instructions

Patch a task's fields. status='completed' completes it (or use task_complete).

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "task_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes that setting status='completed' completes the task, which is a specific behavior. However, it does not describe other potential side effects, idempotency, or permission requirements, leaving gaps 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?

The description is very concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It packs purpose and a usage hint into a single sentence. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes) to improve clarity.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values or how to use most parameters, relying heavily on the user's prior knowledge. The sibling tools provide some context but the description itself is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions the 'status' parameter and its effect, leaving the remaining 6 parameters (account, task_id, tasklist_id, title, notes, due) unexplained. This insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 'Patch a task's fields,' which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'task_complete' by noting that setting status='completed' completes it or use the dedicated tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions an alternative (task_complete) for the specific action of completing a task, giving some guidance on when to use this tool versus another. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or broader usage context.

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

Deploy Server