Update an access scope. The slug cannot be changed after creation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Updated display name | |
| scopeId | Yes | Access scope ID | |
| isActive | No | Whether the scope is active | |
| metadata | No | Updated key-value metadata | |
| description | No | Updated description |
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?
The description discloses that the slug cannot be changed after creation, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify whether updates are partial or full, nor any error semantics.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The statement about the slug is relevant and earns its place.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return format, potential errors, and update semantics. It is minimal but not misleading, yet more detail would be needed for full contextual completeness.
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?
All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a constraint about the slug (not in the schema), but does not elaborate on other parameter behaviors.
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 clearly states the tool updates an access scope, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scope, delete_scope, and get_scope.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, though the name and sibling list imply it is for modifying existing scopes. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
