Project Tracker MCP Server

by spranab

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

update_status_update

Modify an existing status update's title, content, tags, or type using its UUID to keep project tracking accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing status update

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": {
      "status_update_id": "<status_update_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_status_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	New tags
`title`	No	New title
`content`	No	New content
`status_type`	No	New status type
`status_update_id`	Yes	UUID of the status update to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a partial/patch update or a full replace (leaving unspecified optional fields ambiguous), what permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so there is nothing wasteful. But it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, trading away useful context for brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits partial-vs-full update semantics, permission/auth requirements, and response behavior. An agent has to infer all of this.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema (tags, title, content, status_type, status_update_id). The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (update) and resource (status update), and the object 'existing' clarifies it targets an already-created entity. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the many other update_* siblings (update_issue, update_project, update_summary) or to indicate which fields are mutable. Clear but no sibling differentiation.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g., that status_update_id must reference an existing record), and no reference to alternatives such as create_status_update or delete_status_update. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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