Skip to main content
Glama

AssetLab

by ca.assetlab
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update asset lifecycle event

update_asset_lifecycle_event
DestructiveIdempotent

Update a facility lifecycle strategy event by ID. Editing re-confirms the cost (cost_reviewed_on is server-set). Set is_active false to disable an event without deleting it - projections recompute immediately. Requires asset_lifecycle_events:write scope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesLifecycle event ID
nameNoEvent name
is_activeNoDisable/enable the event
fixed_costNoFixed cost per application (current dollars, never indexed)
sort_orderNoEvaluation order within the strategy
cost_sourceNoProvenance of the cost ("Engineering 2026", a tender reference)
event_classNoEvent type - preventative maintenance or rehabilitation
impact_methodNoEffect: add years of life, or reset condition to a value
impact_reset_toNoCondition after the event (required when impact_method is reset_condition)
work_generationNoWhat a due application of this event becomes when created from the interventions list: none (plan only, default), work_order, or project. Nothing is created on a schedule.
impact_add_yearsNoYears added (required when impact_method is add_years)
max_applicationsNoHow many times the event may fire over an asset's life (default 1)
min_years_betweenNoMinimum years between firings of a recurring event (default 1)
trigger_condition_maxNoUpper bound of the trigger window - the event fires when projected condition falls to this
trigger_condition_minNoLower bound of the trigger window (default 0); an asset already below it has missed the event
work_generation_priorityNoPriority for generated work orders. Ignored unless work_generation is work_order.
work_generation_category_idNoWork category for generated work orders - resolve with list_work_categories. Ignored unless work_generation is work_order.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: cost_reviewed_on is server-set on edit and projections recompute immediately when deactivated. That goes beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: identity/operation, the cost-reconfirmation side effect, the is_active disabling behavior, and the scope requirement. The operation is front-loaded 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 17-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the key behavioral surprises (server-set cost field, immediate projection recompute, scope). No output schema exists but return values are not critical here. Nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters thoroughly. The description's mention of is_active largely restates the schema, and it does not add syntax or format detail beyond what is already provided, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a facility lifecycle strategy event by ID"). It distinguishes the facility lifecycle event from the similarly named infrastructure sibling only implicitly via the word "facility"; it does not call out that alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Offers one concrete usage tip - set is_active false to disable rather than delete - and states the required write scope. However it does not frame when to use this versus sibling update/create lifecycle event tools, so guidance is present but partial.

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

All AssetLab 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