Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Kosmodrom

by ai.kosmodrom
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

chat_message_update

Destructive

Edits the token owner's own regular message within 60 minutes of sending: text replaces the old one, mentions are recalculated from mention tokens, passed attachments replace the old ones ([] removes all). The chat shows an "edited" mark; later corrections go as a new message, quoting the original only when other messages already follow it.

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": {
      "messageID": "<messageID>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "chat_message_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesFull new text (Markdown), in the language of the workspace data
messageIDYesMessage ID
attachmentsNoNew attachment set, up to 5; replaces the old one entirely

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / properties / mentions
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Not needed: mentions come from mention tokens in text",
-  "items": {
-    "format": "uuid",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive mutation, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: the 60-minute limit, text replacement, mention recalculation, attachment replacement with [] removing all, the "edited" mark, and the fallback behavior for later corrections. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive edit.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core operation and constraints. Every clause carries useful information about behavior, limits, or alternatives, with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the missing pieces: eligibility, timing, replacement semantics, side effects, and what to do instead for later corrections. Annotations already handle the safety profile, and the description completes the operational picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully adds that text fully replaces the old content, mentions are recalculated from tokens, and attachments replace the old set entirely with [] meaning remove all. It does not elaborate on messageID beyond ownership and time constraints, but the added semantics for the write behavior are strong.

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 (edits a message) and scopes it to the token owner's own regular message. It clearly distinguishes this from chat_send and chat_message_delete by focusing on replacement of existing text and attachments within a time window.

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?

It gives explicit eligibility rules: only the token owner's own regular message, only within 60 minutes, and later corrections must go as a new message. It also specifies the quoting behavior when other messages follow, which directly tells the agent when not to use this tool.

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

All Kosmodrom toolsInspect
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