Skip to main content
Glama

Dayze — Life Context

by com.dayze
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update People Link

update_people_link

Patch an existing person↔person graph edge (type/context/source/confidence). ($0.10; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNo
sourceNo
person_idNo
confidenceNo
request_idNoClient idempotency key (retries return original result).
connection_idNo
idempotency_keyNoAlias for request_id.
other_person_idNo
relationship_typeNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoThe Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
messageNo
updatedNo
connectionNo
provenanceNoWhich connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
+  "properties": {
+    "display_name": {
+      "description": "Account display name.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "handle": {
+      "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "qa_fixture": {
+      "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "handle",
+    "display_name",
+    "qa_fixture",
+    "note"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / provenance
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Which connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.",
+  "properties": {
+    "account": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
+      "properties": {
+        "display_name": {
+          "description": "Account display name.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "handle": {
+          "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "note": {
+          "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "qa_fixture": {
+          "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "handle",
+        "display_name",
+        "qa_fixture",
+        "note"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "channel": {
+      "description": "Always mcp_connector.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "connector": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "kind": {
+          "description": "oauth or api_key.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "description": "The connected app or API-key label shown to the account owner.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "kind",
+        "name"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "description": "chatgpt for ChatGPT OAuth writes; mcp for another OAuth app or API key.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "source",
+    "channel",
+    "connector",
+    "account"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: cost ($0.10) and API-key auth requirement. It does not say whether the patch is partial/merge or how omitted fields are treated.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with cost/auth appended as a compact parenthetical. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a nine-parameter mutation tool with zero required parameters and 22% schema coverage, the description leaves the edge-identification mechanism and partial-update behavior unstated.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description must carry the load, but it names just four concepts (type/context/source/confidence) against nine parameters. The identifying parameters (person_id, other_person_id, connection_id) and the idempotency aliases get no semantic help.

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 ('Patch') and resource ('existing person↔person graph edge'), and lists the patchable fields. The word 'existing' implicitly distinguishes it from the create-side sibling link_people, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Only the adjective 'existing' hints that an edge must already be present. There is no statement of when to use this versus link_people (create) or unlink_people (remove), nor any prerequisite about how the edge is identified.

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

All Dayze — Life Context 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