hortusfox-mcp

Edit task

hortusfox_edit_task

Update a task's title, due date, description, recurrence, or completion state in HortusFox.

Instructions

Edit an existing task by ID, including toggling its done state. Endpoint: /api/tasks/edit.

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": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "hortusfox_edit_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`done`	No	Set the task done/completed state.
`task`	Yes	The task ID to edit.
`title`	No	Updated title.
`due_date`	No	Updated due date (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD).
`description`	No	Updated description.
`recurring_time`	No	Updated recurrence interval count.
`recurring_scope`	No	Updated recurrence scope/unit.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv1.0.1Jul 8, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / recurring_time / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / recurring_time / minimum
```
Added value: +-9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / task / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  }
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / task / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "number"
-]
```
First observedv1.0.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the endpoint and toggling done state, but fails to disclose whether updates are partial or full, if other fields can be updated independently, idempotency, or authorization requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise at two sentences, with no fluff. However, it could be structured to immediately convey the core purpose without the endpoint detail. The endpoint is better placed in annotations or separate metadata.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain behavior like partial vs. full updates, required fields beyond 'task', and return status. It lacks this completeness, leaving agents uncertain about side effects.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value by explicitly mentioning 'toggling its done state,' which aligns with the schema's description of the 'done' parameter. It does not add significant new meaning beyond 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 clearly states 'Edit an existing task by ID, including toggling its done state.' This specifies the verb (edit), resource (task), and a specific capability (toggle done state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'hortusfox_add_task' and 'hortusfox_remove_task'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, when not to use, or context for invocation. It only states the action and endpoint.

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

Deploy Server