Fine Structure

Update Agent Trigger

update_agent_trigger

Destructive

Change a trigger's name, type, event, source, instructions, schedule or status (active or paused). Only the fields given change. Archive it with archive_agent_trigger.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "trigger_id": "<trigger_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_agent_trigger"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`source`	No
`status`	No
`agent_id`	Yes	The agent id, from list_agents.
`schedule`	No	For trigger_type schedule or watch: the same shape as in schedule_agent_task, e.g. {"type":"daily","time":"08:30","timezone":"Asia/Jerusalem"}.
`event_type`	No
`trigger_id`	Yes	The trigger id, from list_agent_triggers.
`instructions`	No
`trigger_type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety framing is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: "Only the fields given change," which clarifies patch rather than replace semantics and prevents an agent from assuming omitted fields are cleared.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the field scope stated first, the patch semantics second, and the sibling routing last. Every sentence carries information.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested schedule object and no output schema deserves a bit more: the description does not say whether changing trigger_type invalidates or reinterprets existing schedule/event_type values, nor whether permissions or trigger state (active/paused) gate the update. Adequate, but an agent could still call this incorrectly on a type change.

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 schema coverage at 33% across 9 parameters, the description compensates by naming the seven mutable fields (name, type, event, source, instructions, schedule, status), mapping loosely to trigger_type, event_type, and the rest. However it adds no meaning for the enums (what "event" vs "watch" implies) and no note on which fields are required or valid for which trigger_type, so gaps remain.

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?

Opens with a specific verb ("Change") applied to a specific resource ("a trigger") and enumerates the mutable fields so an agent knows exactly what surface is covered. It also differentiates against a named sibling (archive_agent_trigger) for the removal case.

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 archive sentence explicitly routes the delete/retire case to archive_agent_trigger instead of this tool, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of other exclusions, such as create_agent_trigger or run_agent_trigger_now, which an agent must infer from names.

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

All Fine Structure tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?