Skip to main content
Glama

Update pipeline

update_pipeline
Destructive

Update an existing content pipeline. Use when user says "rename my pipeline", "change the pipeline name", "update pipeline settings", or wants to modify pipeline configuration. Can update name, persona, ICPs, output type, or destination.

[write-tier — first use may require a manager's approval; a from-now-on approval makes future calls seamless, a just-once approval re-asks next time. Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat.]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name for the pipeline
outputNoNew output type
icp_idsNoNew list of ICP IDs to target
personaNoNew persona ID to use for transformations
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
destinationNoWhere to publish: freedom_os (auto-publish to platform), manual (copy/paste). Social platforms (x/linkedin/instagram/facebook/threads) publish via the gated owner after human approval — instagram items REQUIRE media. Meta platforms need the company's Facebook & Instagram (or Threads) connection in Connections.
pipeline_idYesID of the pipeline to update (get from list_pipelines)
github_inputNoWhether this pipeline listens to GitHub weekly digest. Social-post pipelines should be false — a story is submitted from the corpus; receipts use ship_receipt. Changelog may stay true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / destination / description
      Previous value: -"Where to publish: freedom_os (auto-publish to platform), manual (copy/paste). Social platforms (x/linkedin/instagram/facebook/threads) publish via the gated owner after human approval — instagram items REQUIRE media. Meta platforms need the company's Facebook & Instagram (or Threads) connection in Smart Tools."New value: +"Where to publish: freedom_os (auto-publish to platform), manual (copy/paste). Social platforms (x/linkedin/instagram/facebook/threads) publish via the gated owner after human approval — instagram items REQUIRE media. Meta platforms need the company's Facebook & Instagram (or Threads) connection in Connections."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / github_input
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Whether this pipeline listens to GitHub weekly digest. Social-post pipelines should be false — a story is submitted from the corpus; receipts use ship_receipt. Changelog may stay true.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal this is a mutating, non-idempotent, destructive operation. The description adds valuable write-tier approval behavior and instructs the agent not to re-ask in chat once approved, which is beyond what annotations convey. It does not detail overwrite or merge semantics, but the approval context is genuinely useful.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then trigger examples, then fields, and ends with the approval note. The bracketed approval paragraph is a bit long but relevant and not redundant with the schema.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with 100% schema coverage, the description covers when to act, what can change, and the approval workflow. The omission of github_input from the 'Can update' list is a small gap, but the schema fills it and no return-value contract is needed without an output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters thoroughly. The description's field list mostly restates the schema and omits github_input, so it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the structured definitions.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'Update an existing content pipeline,' and enumerates the mutable aspects (name, persona, ICPs, output type, destination). This makes it readily distinguishable from pipeline lifecycle siblings like create_pipeline or archive_pipeline.

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?

It gives explicit trigger phrases ('rename my pipeline', 'change the pipeline name', 'update pipeline settings') and says to call on the first clear ask, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but 'existing' plus the sibling list makes the distinction mostly inferable.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources