Skip to main content
Glama

Rig Node Update

rig_node_update

Configure ONE block (graph node) of a canvas rig in place — 'change step 2's instruction', 'point that block at a live endpoint', 'pin Sonnet on the judge step'. Identify the block by id/label/skill/position; pass only the fields to change (rig_author's node fields) — a MERGE, so tweaking the instruction never wipes a wired endpoint. skill re-resolves the registry binding. The block keeps its id, edges, and canvas position. Returns the fresh block summary; the Builder canvas updates live.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
nodeYesWhich block: node id, label, skill name, or 1-based position ('2')
toolNo
labelNo
modelNo
skillNoRe-bind the block to this registry skill (optional)
methodNo
paramsNo
rig_idYesUUID of the rig
data_opNo
expectsNoWhat this step expects from upstream, in plain words
headersNoExtra HTTP headers for a `url` fetch.
sub_rigNoRe-bind the block as a SUB-RIG step: {rig_id, name?} (or the rig_id string). An existing sub-rig binding survives every OTHER patch untouched — you only need this to point the block at a different rig.
data_keyNo
endpointNo
producesNoWhat this step produces for downstream
data_typeNo
doc_inputNo
instructionNo
secret_refsNoThe runner's saved keys for this step: [{alias, as?}] — as = 'param:<key>' | 'header:<Name>[:<prefix>]', or omit and use {{secret:<alias>}} in a param value. This is how you wire an API key onto an existing block ('use my coingecko key here'). Resolved server-side; never stored in the step or the trace.
model_policyNo
wallet_addressYesOwner scope

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the MERGE behavior, that the block keeps its id/edges/canvas position, that `skill` re-resolves the registry binding, and that the Builder canvas updates live. This prevents an agent from assuming a partial update could wipe wired endpoints or that structural changes occur.

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 tightly written and front-loaded with the core action, followed by illustrative examples, the critical MERGE caveat, and the outcome. Every sentence earns its place without redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 22-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is modified, how to identify the node, non-destructive merge semantics, and the return value/live update. It could be more complete by enumerating the major editable node-field categories, but it is sufficient for safe high-level invocation.

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 description coverage is only 41%, so the description must compensate. It adds real value for `node` identification (id/label/skill/position), the merge principle, and the `skill` re-binding behavior. However, many of the 22 parameters like `data_op`, `method`, `params`, `headers`, and `sub_rig` are not semantically explained in the description, leaving gaps for an agent selecting exact fields.

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: 'Configure ONE block (graph node) of a canvas rig in place'. The examples ('change step 2's instruction', 'point that block at a live endpoint', 'pin Sonnet on the judge step') clarify exactly what the tool does and help distinguish it from siblings like rig_node_add or rig_node_remove.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: modifying an existing block in place, with MERGE semantics so unrelated fields are preserved. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives or contrast with rig_node_add/remove, but the 'ONE block' and 'in place' phrasing gives a clear context for invocation.

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.