Skip to main content
Glama

busabase

by com.busabase
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Propose a Base view change (create / update / delete / restore)

view_change_request

Propose a Base view change (create / update / delete / restore)

Review is permission-aware, decided server-side: the change merges immediately when your key has write access on the Base's node and lands as a pending ChangeRequest otherwise — check the response's materialized field to see which happened. Pass requireReview to always propose instead of merging. Views are structure, not content — when you are building starter structure (a Base plus the views that make it usable) let it merge so the workspace is not left half-built behind a review queue, exactly as you would for node_create and POST /bases. create needs the BASE id; update / delete / restore need the VIEW id — the endpoint split follows whichever id identifies the target, which this task handles for you.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoView name (create only).
typeNoView type, e.g. `table`, `gallery` (create only).
patchNoChanges to apply to the view (update only).
actionYesWhat to do. Choose this before the other arguments.
baseIdNoBase the view belongs to (create only).
configNoView configuration — filters, sorts, visible fields (create only).
viewIdNoTarget view id.
messageNoExplanation for the reviewer.
playbookNoOptional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.
autoMergeNoSkip review and apply the change immediately if you have write access. Not a permission override — a changeRequest-level key still gets a pending CR. Default is permission-aware: merge when you can, otherwise propose.
submittedByNoProducer label recorded on the change.
requireReviewNoAlways propose a pending ChangeRequest, even with write access.
targetSpaceIdNoBusabase space id. Call auth_verify first and ask the user which space to use when more than one is returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / playbook
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The playbook you are following, as `kind:nodeId[:key]` from playbooks_search (e.g. `prompt:nod_123:log-visit`). Recorded on the change request so the person can see which playbook produced it.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical runtime behavior beyond the annotations: whether the change merges or lands as a pending request depends on server-side write access, and the response's `materialized` field tells the caller which happened. It also clarifies that autoMerge is not a permission override and that requireReview always proposes. This is substantial, non-obvious behavior that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds a distinct instruction or clarification. The sentence about starter structure is somewhat long and includes an analogy, but it earns its place by giving an important policy. It is not maximally streamlined given the tool's complexity, but it is appropriately sized.

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 13-parameter tool with four actions and no output schema, the description covers the central runtime decision (merge vs. pending ChangeRequest), tells the caller to inspect `materialized`, and explains id targeting. It does not enumerate the shape of `patch` or `config`, but the schema covers parameters and the key response field is named. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by mapping actions to required ids: `create` uses baseId while update/delete/restore use viewId, and it explains the endpoint split. It also gives operational meaning to requireReview and autoMerge that goes beyond their per-field descriptions.

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 opening phrase 'Propose a Base view change (create / update / delete / restore)' names a specific verb, resource, and all four supported operations, so an agent knows exactly what the tool targets. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling change-request tools like bases_create_change_request or record_change_request, though the 'Views are structure, not content' line hints at its scope.

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 usage context: review is permission-aware, changes merge immediately with write access and otherwise become a pending ChangeRequest, and requireReview forces a proposal while autoMerge skips review only with write access. It also advises letting the change merge when building starter structure so the workspace isn't left half-built, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer a sibling change-request tool over this one.

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

All busabase 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