Skip to main content
Glama

PCD (Portable Context Deck)

by ai.portablecontext.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update Meta

update_meta

Update account-wide user or company context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNoDefault 'write'. 'validate': pre-send check — runs the same per-surface cap validators the write path enforces post-merge (identity/preferences key + char caps, guidelines instruction caps) on the candidate payload WITHOUT writing; returns { valid, missing_required[], over_cap: [{field, len, cap}], not_checked? }.
payloadYesSurface-specific payload. user → { identity?, preferences?, guidelines? }. company → { brand?, standards?, methodology? }. Object/dict fields are key-merged with existing; arrays REPLACE on provided. See schema doc §user-meta / §company-meta for shapes + caps.
surfaceYesWhich meta surface to write. 'user' → the account's user-meta (identity/preferences/guidelines). 'company' → the account's company-meta (brand/standards/methodology).
contractNoHelp mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed.
container_idNoOptional nudge hint — if provided, bumps the container's topology freshness stamp so the current turn sees the change on next refresh. NOT a write target.

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the generic word 'update' adds no new behavioral insight. The description does not mention key behaviors such as key-merge versus array-replace, validation, or side-effects of the container_id hint.

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 a single sentence with no filler; the core surface distinction is front-loaded. It is as concise as possible with the given scope.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is moderately complex with an alternative validate-only action, a help contract mode, nested payload structures, and merge/replace behavior, but the description communicates none of that. An agent cannot know from the description alone that this tool can validate without writing or that the schema documents critical limitations.

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% with detailed descriptions for every parameter. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('update') and resource ('account-wide user or company context'), and the 'user' vs 'company' distinction maps to the surface enum. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as write_container_meta.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of the validate or contract modes. The phrase 'account-wide' implies scope, but the description lacks the explicit selection rules that would let an agent route correctly.

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

All PCD (Portable Context Deck) 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