Update the text of an existing user_rule.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| rule_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| upgrade_url | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds only a small amount of context by specifying that the target is an existing user_rule. It does not disclose overwrite semantics, permissions, or failure behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden somewhat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no redundant words. It is efficient, though slightly sparse in supporting details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter update with an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is updated and that the target is an existing rule. It omits guidance on how to locate rule_id and what happens if the rule does not exist, which are meaningful gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter meaning. It explains that 'text' is the field being updated, but it only loosely implies that 'rule_id' identifies which rule to update. No format, source, or constraints are given for rule_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('text of an existing user_rule'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_user_rule and remove_user_rule. The 'existing' qualifier reinforces that this is an update operation, not a create or delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_user_rule or remove_user_rule. It also does not mention prerequisites, such as how to obtain the rule_id or whether the rule must already exist beyond the word 'existing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map cleanly to distinct resource+action pairs: projects, tasks, skills, user rules, memory, and messaging are all clearly separated. The main ambiguity is update_task versus update_task_state, since update_task can also change state and plan_status, though the descriptions do point to the narrow intended use.
The naming is largely consistent verb_noun snake_case: create_project, update_skill, delete_task, list_projects, get_context, save_turn. Minor deviations include recent_messages lacking a verb, remove_user_rule versus delete_* style, and singular user_rule in mutations versus plural user_rules in listing.
With 27 tools, the server is over the typical well-scoped MCP range, even though it covers several domains. Some consolidation is possible, such as folding update_task_state into update_task and reducing the overlapping retrieval/search tools.
The tool set provides strong lifecycle coverage for projects, tasks, skills, and user rules, plus memory retrieval, agent messaging, and onboarding help. Minor gaps exist, like no standalone get_task or list_tasks and no explicit inbox listing, but get_project and get_context largely cover those needs.
