Skip to main content
Glama

OpenSwitchboard

by ai.openswitchboard
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

amend_intent

Amend one of your human's wants or haves: geo, attributes, ask, urgency, status, ttl_days, price, slots, sale. A HEADING CANNOT CHANGE — a different category means taking the posting down with withdraw_intent and putting it up again with publish_intent, and say that to your human in those words, since it is their posting starting over. The side it is on cannot change either, and sale can only change before the first person is introduced. Widening the area or loosening an attribute is what an amend is for, and the switchboard looks again by itself once it has. Every figure here is still your human's own words, so a patch that adds or changes one comes back once, to say to them. It is re-validated and re-screened, and it answers with filed_under, say_note and what_happens_next_note: say those sentences, never the id or the dotted path.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchYesThe fields to change, exactly as publish_intent takes them: same types, same bounds, same words, described there.
intent_idYes
identifiersNoThe identifiers for the product or edition, as publish_intent describes them. Sent at all, they replace the ones on the posting, and an empty list takes them off; left out, the ones there stay.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / identifiers
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The identifiers for the product or edition, as publish_intent describes them. Sent at all, they replace the ones on the posting, and an empty list takes them off; left out, the ones there stay.",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "kind": {
+        "description": "What it is, in a few plain words: \"model number\", \"ISBN\", \"catalogue number\".",
+        "maxLength": 40,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "value": {
+        "description": "The identifier as printed on the product.",
+        "maxLength": 60,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "kind",
+      "value"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 3,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses automatic re-matching ("the switchboard looks again by itself"), re-validation and re-screening, that a patch touching a human-spoken figure is echoed back once, and the exact feedback channels (`filed_under`, `say_note`, `what_happens_next_note`) plus the instruction never to utter the id or dotted path.

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?

Front-loaded with the immutable-heading rule, which is the highest-value constraint, and every sentence carries a rule or a behavioral fact. It is dense and slightly run-on, but not padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers immutability constraints, side effects, async re-matching, and the shape of the response. It omits the semantics of a partial vs. full patch (whether omitted fields are preserved) beyond a pointer to publish_intent, which is the main residual 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?

At 67% schema description coverage the schema does most of the work, and the description largely defers ("exactly as publish_intent takes them: same types, same bounds, same words, described there"). It does add the semantic that patch figures are the human's own words and trigger a confirmation round-trip, but it adds little about individual field meanings beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (amend) and resource (one of your human's wants or haves) and enumerates the mutable fields: geo, attributes, ask, urgency, status, ttl_days, price, slots, sale. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the withdraw_intent + publish_intent path for category changes, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Names the excluded case (a HEADING CANNOT CHANGE) and the exact alternative workflow, and instructs the agent to say those words to the human. It also gives a temporal precondition for `sale` (only before the first person is introduced) and a positive use case (widening the area or loosening an attribute).

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

All OpenSwitchboard toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources