Saga MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

task_update

Idempotent

Update a task's fields, dependencies, or status while preventing completion if subtasks remain unfinished, unless a human-approved force override is provided.

Instructions

Update a task; pass only fields to change. Completing it while subtasks are unfinished is refused unless force is set.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "task_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Task ID
`tags`	No
`force`	No	Proceed despite unmet prerequisites. Only when a human says the blocker no longer applies, never on your own initiative. Logged.
`title`	No
`status`	No
`due_date`	No
`priority`	No
`depends_on`	No	Task IDs this task depends on (replaces existing)
`sort_order`	No	Manual position within the epic; lower sorts first. Use task_reorder instead of setting this by hand.
`source_ref`	No	Link to source code location
`assigned_to`	No
`description`	No
`actual_hours`	No
`estimated_hours`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.0Sep 9, 2026

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."

Changed1 schema field changedv1.14.0Sep 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / sort_order / description

Added value: +"Manual position within the epic; lower sorts first. Use task_reorder instead of setting this by hand."

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.10.0Sep 6, 2026
- 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"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / source_ref / properties / file / description
```
Removed value: -"File path"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / source_ref / properties / line_end / description
```
Removed value: -"End line number"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / source_ref / properties / line_start / description
```
Removed value: -"Start line number"
```
First observedv1.5.3Mar 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and mark it idempotent. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: completing a task with unfinished subtasks is refused unless force is set. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it does not describe result shape or side effects like logging.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys purpose and usage rule, and the second adds the critical guard condition. Every part earns its place.

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?

With 14 parameters, a nested source_ref object, enums, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It covers partial updates and the completion guard, but leaves the agent to infer return behavior, array replacement semantics, and reordering guidance. Some of that is handled in the schema, so the tool is usable, but not fully self-contained.

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 only 36%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does only partially. 'Pass only fields to change' is valuable across all parameters, and the force/completion relationship is useful. However, many parameters remain undocumented in both the description and the schema, even if their names are somewhat self-explanatory.

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?

The description opens with 'Update a task,' a specific verb and resource, and adds useful patch semantics with 'pass only fields to change.' It does not explicitly contrast with task_batch_update or task_reorder, so it misses the top mark for 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It provides a clear invocation style ('pass only fields to change') and a specific conditional refusal rule, but it never says when to prefer task_batch_update, subtask_update, or task_reorder. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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