Skip to main content
Glama

Compoid MCP

by com.compoid
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compoid_update_record

Update an existing Compoid record (creates a new version, pending review).

Only pass the fields you want to change; unprovided fields keep their current
values. An update with no changed fields is rejected as a no-op.

Required:
    work_id: the record to update - a published record PID (e.g.
        '4171t-rc787'), a full record URL, or its OAI. Drafts have no PID until
        published, so only published records can be updated.

Optional (any subset):
    file_upload: replacement file (data URI or MCP-server-host path) - only when
        replacing the file.
    title, description, creators, keywords, references: metadata to change.
    resource_type: must be one of analysis, image, video, audio, publication,
        document, software, project, dataset, presentation, workflow, tutorial,
        other - any other value is rejected with 400 'Not a valid value.'
    subjects: up to 5 subject display names
        (https://www.compoid.com/subjects). Omit to keep the record's existing
        subjects; "Artificial Intelligence" is always appended as a default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
work_idYes
creatorsNo
keywordsNo
subjectsNo
referencesNo
descriptionNo
file_uploadNo
resource_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / subjects
      Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "title": "Subjects",
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: versioning, review pending, no-op rejection, published-only constraint, resource_type validation with a 400 error, subject limits, and default subject appending are all disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential versioning behavior, then organized into Required/Optional sections. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is remarkably complete: it covers input formats, validation, defaults, error cases, and what happens to unchanged fields. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does: work_id accepted formats, file_upload data URI/path, resource_type allowed values with error detail, subjects cap and default, plus the subtle 'unprovided fields keep current values' semantics that affect every parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing Compoid record', further clarifying it creates a new version pending review. The 'existing' qualifier distinguishes it from create_record, and 'record' distinguishes it from update_community.

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?

Provides clear context on how to update: pass only changed fields, no-op rejections, and work_id must be a published PID/URL/OAI. It doesn't explicitly name create_record as the alternative for new records, but the 'existing record' constraint implies the when-to-use boundary.

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

All Compoid MCP 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