Skip to main content
Glama

turnale

by app.turnale

Update players

update_player

Rename a player or set their gender/level/note. Updates MANY in one call: pass updates with one object per player and never loop one-by-one — setting levels for a whole roster used to be one call per player, which on a phone meant approving each one and left the roster half-updated when some were mis-tapped. The whole batch applies or none of it does.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoFree note shown on the tournament page. Pass an empty string to clear it.
levelNoAny consistent numeric level/rating — used only for seeding and balancing
genderNo
updatesNoBulk edit — e.g. levels for a whole roster in one call
new_nameNo
request_idNoOptional idempotency id — retrying a call with the same id never applies it twice
player_nameNoSingle update; or use `updates` for several
tournament_keyYesThe tournament's organiser key (starts with tk_)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerNo
playersYes
previewNoTrue when this is a preview — nothing was changed
summaryYesWhat happened, in one line

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses atomicity: "The whole batch applies or none of it does," a critical behavioral trait not captured in the annotations. It also explains the historical pain point of partial updates, adding valuable context beyond the readOnly/destructive hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four sentences and front-loaded with purpose. The anecdote about phone approvals is slightly verbose but serves as a memorable justification for the batch design. Overall, it is concise and each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, nested array objects), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: batch usage, atomicity, and the single-vs-multiple dichotomy. It does not address potential edge cases like mixing top-level and array updates, but the output schema and detailed parameter schema fill some gaps.

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 coverage is 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the `updates` array pattern, but it does not clarify the relationship between top-level fields and the updates array, or explain the `new_name` parameter. The schema already covers most parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Rename a player or set their gender/level/note." It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_players or remove_player by focusing on updating existing players, and the batch capability further clarifies its unique role.

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?

It provides direct usage guidance: "never loop one-by-one" and "pass `updates` with one object per player," which is a clear directive for batch use. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, it implicitly advises against an inefficient pattern and sets expectations for the batch workflow.

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

All turnale 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools serve overlapping purposes: get_pdf and get_pdf_link both return PDF artifacts, get_schedule and list_matches both provide match scheduling info, and get_results vs. get_standings can be confused for finished tournaments. However, the descriptions clarify the distinctions (embedded vs. link, upcoming vs. all matches, final vs. current standings), and roster-management tools are clearly separated by action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 30 tools consistently use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_tournament, record_results, withdraw_player). The only slight variation is the mix of get_* and list_* for read operations, but that's a common and predictable convention. There are no camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 30 tools, the server exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the domain is complex, this count is heavy and may overwhelm agents, especially since several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_pdf/get_pdf_link, get_schedule/list_matches). A more streamlined set around 20 tools would be more appropriate.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive lifecycle coverage for tournament management: create/delete/end tournaments, manage players (add, remove, replace, withdraw, promote, update), generate draws, record results, handle doubles pairs, reschedule, retrieve standings/schedule/results, export/PDF, audit log, undo changes, and feedback. No major gaps are apparent for the stated purpose.

Resources