Skip to main content
Glama

PCD (Portable Context Deck)

Update Deck

update_deck

Revise a container or specialist deck configuration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loadNoChange the deck's load handle (the boot key). Lowercase, hyphens allowed, max 24 chars, must start with letter or number, must not be reserved (meta/console/container-context), must be unique per user. Mirrored onto raw_json.load.
nameNoRename the deck (display name, max 64 chars). Optional — provide to rename. Mirrored onto raw_json.name.
actionNoDefault 'write'. 'validate': pre-send check across all three write surfaces (content field caps via the same enforceDeckCaps the write runs, content_ops op/field vocabulary, name ≤64, load format) WITHOUT writing; returns { valid, missing_required[], over_cap: [{field, len, cap}], not_checked? }. Deck resolution, merged-content caps, and content_ops application still run at write time. No identifier needed for validate.
handleNoAlternative identifier — deck.load handle. Use when neither deck_id nor container_id is at hand.
contentNoPartial content patch. Shape: intent (≤600), description (specialized-context only, ≤300 — container-context rejects it; intent is the container's single what-is-this answer), guidelines (instruction_item[]), out_of_bounds (instruction_item[]), data_refs, file_map. file_map is keyed by stable reference name; every item is { path: string, description?: string }, stays deck-local, and key-merges with existing (null deletes a key). instruction_item is { rule, priority, shared? } — per-item shared governs what flows to specialized loads (guidelines/data_refs opt-in via shared:true; out_of_bounds opt-out via shared:false). data_refs entries take optional declaration-layer knobs: read {projection: 'outline'|'summary' | sections: string[]} on medium='kb_record' (grounding grain) and routing 'pcd'|'direct'|'auto' on medium='mcp_connection' (broker vs client reach); rejected on other mediums. Most fields REPLACE on provided — prefer content_ops for single-item edits on the three arrays. session_modes retired — sending it rejects. Optional — may be omitted when only patching name/load.
deck_idNoPreferred identifier — deck UUID. Required for specialized-context (since multiple per container).
contractNoHelp mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed.
deck_typeYesUser-editable deck type. Platform-managed types (container-meta, user-meta, company-meta) are NOT writable through this tool — they live behind their dedicated tools.
content_opsNoPer-item ops against the CURRENT stored arrays; no whole-array resend. Applied sequentially, first failure rejects the call (no partial application). A field addressed here must not also appear in content. The post-ops array flows through the same caps + knob validation as a whole-array write.
container_idNoAlternative identifier — container UUID. Only valid when deck_type='container-context' (1-per-container).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / contract / description
      Previous value: -"Help mode — pass true to receive this tool's full _meta.contract (all variants) with NO operation performed."New value: +"Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

It clearly explains write semantics: fields replace, content_ops apply sequentially with no partial application, session_modes is rejected, and 'validate' performs no write. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the core behavioral effects are well disclosed.

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 long but mostly dense with necessary operational detail. Some repetition exists, such as 'Mirrored onto raw_json...' appearing for multiple fields, but each sentence generally contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The input semantics are thoroughly covered, including the validate return shape and contract help mode. However, there is no output schema and no description of the normal successful write response, which leaves some uncertainty about what the agent should expect after a standard update.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Every parameter has a detailed, purpose-specific description covering constraints, alternatives, optionality, and interactions. The descriptions go well beyond the schema types and enums, especially for content, content_ops, and identifier selection.

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 states a clear action — 'Revise a container or specialist deck configuration' — with a specific resource type. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_deck, read_deck, and switch_deck.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives some usage guidance, such as preferring content_ops for single-item edits, excluding platform-managed deck types, and using 'validate' for pre-send checks. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use update_deck versus create_deck, load_deck, or switch_deck.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources