Bucky

Update project fields

updateProject

Idempotent

Patch project metadata (name, lifecycle status). preview=true returns the field-level diff and writes nothing. A write returns a receipt; undoOperationId restores the captured prior fields. Does not archive or delete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`preview`	Yes	When true, return the field-level diff and write nothing. Combined with undoOperationId, returns the stored receipt.
`projectId`	Yes
`lifecycleStatus`	No
`undoOperationId`	No	Receipt id from a prior updateProject write. Restores the captured prior fields. With preview=true, inspects the receipt instead.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining that preview=true computes a diff and writes nothing, writes return a receipt, and undoOperationId restores prior captured fields. It also explicitly states that the tool does not archive or delete, giving the agent a precise model of 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the next two sentences add the most important behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of schema fields or annotations.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the key response semantics (diff, receipt, undo) and explicitly rules out archive/delete behavior. It leaves some details unaddressed, such as valid lifecycleStatus values, but the core invocation model is clear enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by clarifying that name and lifecycleStatus are the patchable metadata fields and by explaining the behavioral semantics of preview and undoOperationId beyond their schema descriptions. It does not cover the context parameter, though the schema already documents that thoroughly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Patch project metadata (name, lifecycle status).' This clearly communicates the tool's scope and distinguishes it from operations like archiving or deletion. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as saveToProject, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

The description implies the tool is used for patching project metadata, particularly name and lifecycle status. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like saveToProject or runFeasibilityAnalysis, and it does not state any exclusions.

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

All Bucky 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: explanation, guide, snapshot, context, report, analysis run, save, feedback, status check, and update. The only overlap is between getProjectContext and uiGetAnalysisStatus, but the description explicitly clarifies that getProjectContext is preferred, making the distinction unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowerCamelCase verb_Noun pattern (e.g., getFeasibilitySnapshot, runFeasibilityAnalysis, produceProjectReport). Minor variations like saveToProject and uiGetAnalysisStatus still adhere to the same structural style, so naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server covers the full project lifecycle—lookup, creation, analysis, reporting, status, updates, and feedback—without redundancy or bloat. The count is well-scoped for the stated domain of property feasibility analysis.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: create project, attach lots/references, run analysis, retrieve context, update metadata, and generate reports. Major gaps include no list-projects operation and no delete/archive capability, though the documentation explicitly notes these are unsupported on this surface, making them expected limitations rather than operational dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?