Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Saga MCP

Saga MCP

by spranab
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

task_batch_update

Idempotent

Update multiple tasks at once to change their status or reassign them, eliminating the need for repetitive single-task edits.

Instructions

Update multiple tasks at once. Useful for changing status of several tasks (e.g., mark 3 tasks as done) or reassigning tasks.

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": {
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "task_batch_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesTask IDs to update
forceNoProceed despite unmet prerequisites. Only when a human says the blocker no longer applies, never on your own initiative. Logged.
statusNo
priorityNo
assigned_toNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / force / description
      Previous value: -"Proceed despite unmet prerequisites. Only when a human decided the blocker no longer applies — never on your own initiative. Logged."New value: +"Proceed despite unmet prerequisites. Only when a human says the blocker no longer applies, never on your own initiative. Logged."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Proceed despite unmet prerequisites. Only when a human decided the blocker no longer applies — never on your own initiative. Logged.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv1.5.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already communicate that the tool is a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the use cases; it does not mention partial-failure behavior, whether unspecified fields are left untouched, or any side effects. This is acceptable but unremarkable given the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed by concrete examples that aid selection. The description is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main use cases but, with no output schema, the agent is left unaware of what a successful or partial batch update returns. It also omits how partial failures are handled and does not mention the 'force' prerequisite bypass, which is documented only in the schema. This is adequate but not complete.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that 'status' is changeable and 'assigned_to' is for reassignment. However, it says nothing about 'priority', and the schema itself offers no description for status, priority, or assigned_to, leaving that parameter under-specified.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update multiple tasks at once') and reinforces it with concrete examples (marking tasks done, reassigning). The 'multiple' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling task_update without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'Useful for changing status of several tasks... or reassigning tasks' gives clear contexts for choosing this tool. It does not explicitly name task_update as the single-task alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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