Bisque Presentations

Update channel

update_channel

Idempotent

Update one of your channels. Set the description — the line a stranger reads in a search result or a link unfurl, at most 160 characters, empty to clear it and go back to naming the newest presentations. Set the avatar from an image URL, which is fetched, center-cropped square and resized. Pass either or both. Omit handle to use your default channel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`handle`	No	Which of your channel handles to update; defaults to your default username.
`image_url`	No	https URL of the avatar image (any common format, ≤10 MB).
`description`	No	What the channel publishes, in the owner's words. Empty clears it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`failed`	No	Fields that did not apply, each with the reason. A field listed here left the channel unchanged; the ones in updated still took effect.
`handle`	Yes
`updated`	Yes	Field names that were written.
`channelUrl`	Yes	Public channel page carrying the update.
`description`	No	The stored line, or null when the write cleared it.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the avatar is fetched from a URL, center-cropped, and resized; an empty description clears the channel and reverts to auto-naming with newest presentations. This adds significant value beyond the idempotentHint annotation and helps an agent predict side effects.

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?

The description is dense but economical, using three sentences to cover scope, each field's semantics, and the optional/default behavior. Every sentence contributes new information, and the core 'update one of your channels' framing is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With only three optional parameters, no enums, an output schema present, and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It explains defaults, field combinations, clear behavior, and image processing without requiring the agent to infer anything.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though the schema already documents all three parameters, the description enriches each one: it explains what the description line appears in, what empty means behaviorally, and how the avatar image is processed. This goes well beyond the parameter descriptions and disambiguates edge cases like clearing the description.

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 'Update one of your channels,' naming a specific verb and resource, and immediately scopes it to owned channels. It distinguishes the operation from presentation-focused siblings by talking exclusively about channel metadata. No ambiguity remains about what the tool is for.

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?

The description gives clear practical context: pass either or both fields, and omit handle to target the default channel. There are no alternative channel-update tools among the siblings, so a when-not-to-use note is unnecessary. The guidance is useful but stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternative operations.

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

All Bisque Presentations tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, with create/get/list/publish/update separating actions and resources. The main ambiguity is between create_presentation and publish_narrated_presentation, though the descriptions do clarify that one is server-narrated and the other uses locally synthesized audio.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, publish_, update_. The naming is predictable and makes the action and target resource easy to identify.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for the presentations domain, covering authoring, publishing, status, reading, analytics, and channel configuration. There is no bloat, and each tool has a place in the workflow.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: fetch spec, create/publish, check status, list, read shared context, and view analytics. Obvious gaps like deleting or unpublishing a presentation are missing, but they are workable around and do not severely break the primary authoring-to-analytics workflow.

Resources

Need Help?