Skip to main content
Glama

Update playbook

update_playbook
Destructive

Update an existing Playbook (growth_tactics). Use when changing title, how-to / instructions, status, category, assignee, or OKR binding (objective_id / linked_kr_id). Identify by title or ID. Returns operator_brief (spoken summary, stage, what the human owes next) and deep_link into FO Plays. Always speak those; never cite this Play by id alone.

Routing: Edit a saved Playbook → use this. Speak operator_brief + deep_link; never id-alone.

[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
titleNoNew title
statusNoNew status
categoryNoNew category
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
assigned_toNoUser ID or "me"/"current_user" to assign to
descriptionNoNew description
playbook_idNoUUID of the Playbook (use this or playbook_title).
linked_kr_idNoKey-result id the Playbook most advances (validated against the company OKRs; takes precedence over objective_id, and its parent objective is derived). Unresolvable → binding cleared to null. Omit to leave the existing binding untouched.
objective_idNoOKR objective UUID to re-bind this Playbook to (validated against this company); its most off-track key result is chosen. Unresolvable → binding cleared to null. Omit to leave the existing binding untouched.
playbook_titleNoTitle (or fragment) of the Playbook (use this or playbook_id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / playbook_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "UUID of the Playbook (use this or playbook_title).",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / playbook_title
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Title (or fragment) of the Playbook (use this or playbook_id).",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • removedInput schema / properties / tactic_id
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "ID of the Playbook to update (optional if using tactic_title)",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedInput schema / properties / tactic_title
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Title of the Playbook to update (use this or tactic_id)",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly=false, destructive=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the returned operator_brief and deep_link must be spoken, the id must not be cited alone, and the first write use may require manager approval with re-asking rules. It does not detail the destructive overwrite behavior, but what it adds goes beyond structured data.

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 text is front-loaded with the core purpose, then organized into Routing and write-tier sections. It repeats the 'speak operator_brief/deep_link and never id-alone' instruction twice, which is the only notable redundancy; otherwise each section earns its place.

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 10-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to use it, how to identify the target, what the response will be (operator_brief + deep_link), and the approval flow. The remaining parameter details are fully covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats a few parameter ideas (identify by title or ID, OKR binding fields) but does not add semantics beyond the schema, such as precedence details that already live in linked_kr_id/objective_id descriptions.

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 Playbook') and immediately enumerates the editable attributes (title, how-to/instructions, status, category, assignee, OKR binding). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as editing a saved Playbook, which separates it from create/list/run operations.

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 usage triggers: 'Use when changing title, how-to / instructions, status, category, assignee, or OKR binding' and a routing rule ('Edit a saved Playbook → use this'). It does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases explicitly, but the conditions are concrete enough to route an agent.

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