Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Vitalli

by app.vitalli.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

joiva_update_food_rule

DestructiveIdempotent

Change an existing food rule by its ruleId: stance, reason, note, aliases.

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": {
      "ruleId": "<ruleId>"
    },
    "name": "joiva_update_food_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoThe user's stance: 'avoid', 'caution' (small amounts), 'prefer' (explicitly fine, e.g. a report says 'avoid oranges, lemons are okay')
noteNo
labelNoThe food as the user names it, e.g. 'Bananen'
reasonNoReason category as it follows from what the user said; omitted when unclear.
ruleIdYesId of the food rule
sourceNo
aliasesNoFurther spellings the rule matches. Matters for short names: 'Pute' alone matches only that word; the alias 'Puten' also catches Putenbrust.
excludesNoNames not meant despite similarity, e.g. 'Kokosnuss' under a nut rule, as stated by the user.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / ruleId / description
      Previous value: -"ruleId aus joiva_list_food_rules"New value: +"Id of the food rule"
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that specific fields are mutable, but does not disclose partial-update semantics — the critical unknown for a destructive mutation where omitting a field could mean 'keep' or 'clear'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the ruleId key and mutable fields come first. It is arguably too terse for eight parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive, multi-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description should state whether it is a partial or full replacement update and what happens to omitted or nulled fields. With 75% schema coverage the basic field meanings are handled, but this behavioral gap remains.

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% and the schema itself explains kind, reason, aliases and excludes in detail. The description merely echoes four field names (stance, reason, note, aliases) without explaining enums or omission behavior, and omits label, excludes and source entirely, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('existing food rule'), identifies the key ('by its ruleId'), and enumerates the mutable fields. This distinguishes it from joiva_add_food_rule and joiva_remove_food_rule by implication, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Change an existing food rule' weakly implies the update case, but there is no guidance on when to update versus remove-and-re-add, where the ruleId comes from (presumably joiva_list_food_rules), or whether fields left out are preserved. An agent must infer the workflow.

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

All Vitalli toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources