PCD (Portable Context Deck)

Update Signal

update_signal

Add progress, reassign, resolve or dismiss an existing signal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	One line, ≤ 150 chars — the reassign reason or the progress/context note. Over-cap is REJECTED, never truncated.
`action`	Yes	note/reassign require handle and note; reassign also needs assigned_to. resolve/dismiss close the signal, with optional outcome. Progress never closes implicitly.
`handle`	No	Your active deck handle — stamps `by` on the trail entry
`outcome`	No	How it ended — e.g. acted/ignored for propositions, pass/fail for checks.
`contract`	No	Help mode — return the complete contract with no operation performed.
`signal_id`	Yes	UUID of the open signal to update
`assigned_to`	No	Target deck handle — required for action='reassign', invalid otherwise. Soft-validated: an unknown handle warns, never rejects.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"reassign: route the signal to another deck (sets assigned_to, requires a one-line reason in note). note: append progress/context without changing routing."New value: +"note/reassign require handle and note; reassign also needs assigned_to. resolve/dismiss close the signal, with optional outcome. Progress never closes implicitly."

changedInput schema / properties / action / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "reassign",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "note",
+  "reassign",
+  "resolve",
+  "dismiss"
+]

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."

addedInput schema / properties / outcome

Added value: +{
+  "description": "How it ended — e.g. acted/ignored for propositions, pass/fail for checks.",
+  "enum": [
+    "acted",
+    "ignored",
+    "dismissed",
+    "superseded",
+    "pass",
+    "fail"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "signal_id",
-  "action",
-  "handle",
-  "note"
-]New value: +[
+  "signal_id",
+  "action"
+]

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description complements by stating actions like 'resolve or dismiss', which convey state changes. It does not disclose subtle side effects (e.g., notifications, cascading updates), but the primary behavior is clear and consistent with the annotations.

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, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's function without fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

The description does not specify the return value or success/error behavior for normal operations, but it does mention the 'contract' parameter for help mode. Given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the lack of detailed return info is a minor 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?

Schema descriptions cover all 7 parameters with detailed constraints (e.g., 'Over-cap is REJECTED, never truncated', 'invalid otherwise', 'Soft-validated'). The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add progress, reassign, resolve or dismiss an existing signal.' It names the resource (signal) and the specific actions, distinguishing it from tools like write_signal (likely for creating signals) and get_signals (for listing).

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 description implies usage for updating an existing signal and lists action variants, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like write_signal or get_signals. The intended conditions are reasonably inferred from the phrasing, though a more explicit when-to-use would strengthen guidance.

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) tools Inspect

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

Need Help?