Skip to main content
Glama

AgentPlaybooks

by ai.agentplaybooks

Lock canvas section

lock_canvas_section
Idempotent

Lock a section for exclusive editing so other agents cannot modify it. Requires canvas:write or full permission. Always unlock_canvas_section when finished. Do not use this to edit content; pair it with patch_canvas_section. Pass playbook_id as the UUID or GUID of the playbook this call should target.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesDocument slug
run_idYesWorkflow run UUID
locked_byYesAgent identifier
section_idYesSection ID to lock
playbook_idYesUUID or GUID of the target playbook

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it requires canvas:write or full permission, and that it should be paired with unlock. It doesn't mention what happens if already locked, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, all essential. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then parameter clarification. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a locking tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It covers permissions, pairing with unlock, and parameter format. Could mention what happens if the section is already locked, but that's a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description adds context for playbook_id (UUID or GUID) and implies the locking mechanism, but doesn't add much beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool locks a section for exclusive editing, preventing other agents from modifying it. It distinguishes from siblings like patch_canvas_section (editing) and unlock_canvas_section (unlocking).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use (for exclusive editing), when not to use (not for editing content), and pairs with patch_canvas_section. Also instructs to always unlock when finished, and specifies the playbook_id parameter format.

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

All AgentPlaybooks toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., delete_memory vs delete_skill vs delete_run), and even similar operations like read_memory vs search_memory vs get_memory_context have clearly differentiated purposes. The descriptions are detailed and explicitly cross-reference other tools to avoid confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, read_*, etc.), with plurals used uniformly for list operations (list_playbooks, list_runs, list_secrets). No mixed conventions or ambiguous verbs; the naming is highly predictable and systematic.

Tool Count4/5

With 48 tools, the server covers a broad but coherent set of domains (playbooks, personas, skills, memory, canvas, runs, secrets, MCP servers, and discovery). While this exceeds the typical 3-15 range, each tool serves a distinct and necessary function within the comprehensive playbook management scope, so the count feels justified rather than bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for every entity type: playbooks, personas, skills (including versioning and rollback), memory (including hierarchical tasks and tiering), canvas (with locking and patching), runs, secrets (including rotation and usage), and MCP servers. Additionally, find_tools covers discovery for federated tools, leaving no apparent dead ends.

Resources