Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev

update_project

Modify an existing project's fields: reassign owner, team, stage, or party; set custom field values; update dates, description, or status. Only provided fields change, and null clears assignable fields where permitted.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing project, including the parent-reference field partyId to reassign the project to a different primary party. ownerId, teamId, and stageId all accept null to unassign (the latter removes the project from all stages — verified empirically in v1.6.5 wire-trace). Constraint: a project must always have at least one of {owner, team} set, so teamId: null on a project with no owner returns 422. Only the fields you provide are changed. Use status='CLOSED' to close a project. CLOSED projects remain fully editable — Capsule does not enforce closed-record immutability. Stage moves and description edits on a CLOSED project are accepted without warning. Capsule requires every project to have a party — passing partyId: null is rejected with 422 'party is required' (Unlike update_task.partyId which IS nullable — tasks can be orphaned in Capsule's model).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameNo
fieldsNoSet custom field values on this record. PARTIAL UPDATE: only the definitions you list are touched; any field NOT in this array is left unchanged. Discover available definitions via list_custom_fields; read current values via get_project with embed='fields'. Project-specific: setting a field whose definition lives under a 'data tag' populates the row's internal tagId but does NOT auto-add the data tag to the project's tags array — use add_tag explicitly if you want it visible via embed=tags.
statusNo
teamIdNoReassign team: pass a team ID (discover via list_teams) to set, or `null` to unassign. Capsule preserves the existing owner across a team change (server-side), so `update_project { teamId }` alone is safe — the owner is carried through. Owner must be a member of the new team or Capsule returns 422 'owner is not a member of the team'. A project must always have at least one of {owner, team} set — `teamId: null` on a project whose owner is already null returns 422 'owner or team is required'.
ownerIdNoReassign owner: pass a user ID to set, or `null` to unassign (matches the 'Unassign' option in Capsule's web UI). When you supply `ownerId` and omit `teamId` and/or `stageId`, the connector fetches the project's current omitted fields and includes them in the PUT body — this preserves them across the owner change (without it, Capsule's PUT would clear team; stage carry is defensive against the symmetric clear). Supply `teamId` and/or `stageId` explicitly on the same call to change them instead. `teamId: null` clears the team as part of an owner change. Constraints (Capsule enforces, 422 on violation): owner must be a member of the team if both are set; a project must always have at least one of {owner, team} set (cannot clear both).
partyIdNoReassign the project to a different primary party. Capsule requires every project to have a party — passing `null` is rejected with 422 'party is required' (verified empirically in v1.6.3 wire-trace). Discover ids via search_parties / filter_parties. NOTE: parent-ref nullability differs by entity — `update_task.partyId` IS nullable (orphan task), but opportunities and projects must always have a parent party. The same applies to `update_opportunity.partyId`.
stageIdNoMove the project to this stage (board column), or `null` to remove from all stages (verified empirically in v1.6.5 wire-trace — Capsule accepts `stage: null` on project update and the project no longer appears on any board). Discover IDs via list_stages. Owner and team are preserved across stage-only updates (Capsule's PUT semantic). WARNING (cross-board): Capsule does NOT validate that the new stage belongs to the project's current board — passing a stageId from a different board silently relocates the project across boards. Team and other board-derived defaults are NOT updated to match the new board. Verify against the project's current board (read the project first, list its board's stages) before passing a cross-board id.
startOnNoSet the project start date (YYYY-MM-DD), or `null` to clear it. Verified empirically (v2.0.1 wire probe): PUT accepts both the set and the null-clear. `undefined` leaves the field untouched.
descriptionNo
expectedCloseOnNoYYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / fields / items / properties / value / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
      -  {
      -    "type": "string"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "number"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "boolean"
      -  },
      -  {
      -    "type": "null"
      -  }
      -]
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / items / properties / value / type
      Added value: +[
      +  "string",
      +  "number",
      +  "boolean",
      +  "null"
      +]
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / items / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "value"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "definitionId",
      +  "value"
      +]
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "id"
      +]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / stageId / description
      Previous value: -"Move the project to this stage (board column), or `null` to remove from all stages (verified empirically in v1.6.5 wire-trace — Capsule accepts `stage: null` on PUT /kases/:id and the project no longer appears on any board). Discover IDs via list_stages. Owner and team are preserved across stage-only updates (Capsule's PUT semantic). WARNING (cross-board): Capsule does NOT validate that the new stage belongs to the project's current board — passing a stageId from a different board silently relocates the project across boards. Team and other board-derived defaults are NOT updated to match the new board. Verify against the project's current board (read the project first, list its board's stages) before passing a cross-board id."New value: +"Move the project to this stage (board column), or `null` to remove from all stages (verified empirically in v1.6.5 wire-trace — Capsule accepts `stage: null` on project update and the project no longer appears on any board). Discover IDs via list_stages. Owner and team are preserved across stage-only updates (Capsule's PUT semantic). WARNING (cross-board): Capsule does NOT validate that the new stage belongs to the project's current board — passing a stageId from a different board silently relocates the project across boards. Team and other board-derived defaults are NOT updated to match the new board. Verify against the project's current board (read the project first, list its board's stages) before passing a cross-board id."
    • addedInput schema / properties / startOn
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "pattern": "^\\d{4}-\\d{2}-\\d{2}$",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "description": "Set the project start date (YYYY-MM-DD), or `null` to clear it. Verified empirically (v2.0.1 wire probe): PUT accepts both the set and the null-clear. `undefined` leaves the field untouched."
      +}
  3. Addedv1.7.0
  4. Removedv1.6.2
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics, null unassignment behavior, CLOSED-project editability, server-side owner preservation, cross-board stage relocation risks, custom-field clearing quirks, and audit-log noise. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 long but dense and front-loaded with the core purpose before edge cases. Nearly every sentence contributes behavioral value, though a few points such as party requiredness and null behavior are repeated across the tool description and schema, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex 11-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers update semantics, validation constraints, null behavior, custom-field edge cases, CLOSED-project behavior, and empirically verified quirks, giving an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 64%, so the description does meaningful compensatory work by explaining cross-parameter invariants like the owner/team requirement, party non-nullability, and stage null removal. It adds value beyond the schema, though individual parameter meanings are mostly already documented in the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on an existing project', and immediately adds the key parent-reference capability. It also differentiates from sibling tools by contrasting `update_task.partyId` nullability with project behavior, so an agent can distinguish this from related update tools.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: for updating an existing project, closing it with status='CLOSED', reassigning owner/team/stage, and editing custom fields. It provides strong context and constraints, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like batch_update_project or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools