Skip to main content
Glama

Change a saved funnel

update_funnel
DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a saved funnel or replace its steps. Get the id from list_funnels. Send only what changes: a rename keeps the steps and their match types; steps replace all steps (same forms as create_funnel).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "funnel_id": "<funnel_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_funnel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
siteNoSite domain (example.com), id or public id (tb_…). Optional with a site key, or when the account has one site.
stepsNo
funnel_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the crucial semantics: a rename preserves steps and match types, while supplying steps overwrites all existing steps. That overwrite detail explains the destructive hint concretely. It doesn't mention permission or error behavior, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the two operations and the partial-update rule. Every sentence adds actionable information with no filler.

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 destructive partial-update tool with no output schema, this covers the essential call contract including overwrite behavior and id prerequisite. Missing only guidance on the site parameter and any note on response or failure behavior.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description carries weight: it clarifies name as a rename, steps as a full replacement matching create_funnel's forms, and funnel_id's source. Only the 'site' parameter is left unexplained in the description, though the schema documents it, so this is strong but not complete.

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?

States two specific verbs against one resource: 'Rename a saved funnel or replace its steps.' This clearly separates it from siblings like create_funnel, get_funnel, and delete_funnel without the agent needing schema detail.

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 a prerequisite ('Get the id from list_funnels') and a partial-update rule ('Send only what changes'), which tells the agent how to invoke it correctly. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer create_funnel over replacing steps, which keeps it 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources