Skip to main content
Glama

Dock

by ai.trydock

update_surface

Rename, reslug, reorder, OR replace the column schema of a surface. Pass any subset of name, new_surface_slug, position, columns. Position is 0-based and is normalised across siblings so positions stay contiguous. Editor role required. Emits surface.updated.

Column schema (columns): table surfaces only. Pass a full ColumnDef[] to REPLACE the existing schema atomically (no per-column add/remove churn, no row data loss — existing row.data keys that are no longer mapped are preserved on disk and surface in future writes' unmapped_fields). Each ColumnDef = { key, label, type, position, width?, hidden?, description?, options? }. Type ∈ text | longtext | url | status | owner | date | number; options is required on status/owner. Reject 400 with a table-only error if the surface is a doc or html kind. Use get_workspace_schema first to fetch the current shape, mutate it, send it back.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew display name. 1-64 chars.
slugYesThe workspace slug. Accepts either the bare slug ('my-workspace') or the org-prefixed form ('my-org/my-workspace') as shown in the dashboard URL; both resolve to the same workspace.
columnsNoOptional. Full replacement ColumnDef[] for the surface's table schema. Table surfaces only — doc/html surfaces 400 with a table-only error. Each item: `{ key, label, type, position, width?, hidden?, description?, options? }`. type ∈ text|longtext|url|status|owner|date|number. Existing row.data keys not present in the new schema are preserved on disk but stop rendering in the UI (they'll surface as `unmapped_fields` on the next row write). Use get_workspace_schema → mutate → send the full array back; this is a REPLACE, not a merge.
positionNo0-based index in the tab strip. Other surfaces shift to keep positions contiguous.
surface_slugYesThe current slug of the surface to update.
new_surface_slugNoNew slug for the surface (lowercase kebab-case, 3-64 chars). Must be unique within the workspace.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and exceeds it. It discloses atomic replacement semantics, data preservation (unmapped_fields), position normalisation, error responses (400 table-only), role requirement, and event emission. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear one-sentence summary, then provides compact structured details on position, role, event, and columns. The second paragraph is dense but warranted given the complexity of the columns parameter. No wasted words or unnecessary repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral details: role requirements, event emission, error conditions, positional normalisation, and column replacement semantics. It also recommends a preparatory step, making it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining atomic column replacement, data preservation details, and the type/options constraints for ColumnDef. It also reinforces position normalisation, enriching the meaning of the parameters.

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?

Clearly states the tool's actions: rename, reslug, reorder, or replace the column schema of a surface. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_surface and delete_surface by focusing on update operations. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides solid usage context: editor role required, table-only restriction for columns, and a recommended workflow (get_workspace_schema → mutate → send back). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_column or create_surface, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Dock toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.

Resources