Project Tracker MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_project

Modify an existing project's name, description, or status in the Project Tracker MCP Server by providing its project ID and new values. Use it to keep project records current.

Instructions

Update project information

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name for the project
`status`	No	New status for the project
`project_id`	Yes	UUID of the project to update
`description`	No	New description for the project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether fields are partially or fully overwritten, whether omitting a field clears it, what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible. Exercise caution: this is a mutation tool with zero safety context.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no padding. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of the necessary information.

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?

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It leaves unanswered everything an agent needs: update semantics, permission requirements, and the effect on unspecified fields.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each of the four parameters (name, status with an enum, project_id, description) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Update project information" is essentially a restatement of the tool name update_project, with only the vague word "information" added. It gives no indication of which fields are mutable or how this differs from the many sibling update_* tools. This is tautological rather than clarifying.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as update_issue or update_epic. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this tool targets projects rather than any other resource.

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