Skip to main content
Glama

Update coaching catalogue directory

update_catalogue_directory
DestructiveIdempotent

[Coaching catalogue] Update a coaching catalogue directory: rename it, change which sessions it lists (tags_interview_set_filter), re-order its sub-directories (tags_sub), or author its custom Markdown page (content_md). Only the fields you send are changed. Coaching-platform feature.

Updates a directory (page) of the coaching portal catalogue. Only the fields present in the request body are written — everything else keeps its current value, and sending null clears a nullable field. Use it to rename a directory, re-point which sessions it lists (tags_interview_set_filter), re-order or replace its sub-directories (tags_sub), or author its custom Markdown page (content_md).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId of the directory to update (the catalogue URL segment). The id itself cannot be changed — create a new directory instead.
nameNoDisplay name of the directory.
statusNoLifecycle status of the catalogue directory. Options — `draft`: Not published — the directory exists but is not served to visitors. | `active`: Published and served in the catalogue. | `archived`: Retired — kept for reference but no longer served..
tags_subNoIds of the directories nested under this one, in display order. Replaces the whole list — send the full set, not just the additions. A referenced directory only appears if it exists and is visible to the viewer.
coach_planNoCoaching-plan stage this item belongs to, used by the coaching-plan progress view. Omit/null to leave it out of any plan. Options — `demo`: Demo session. | `screening`: Screening-interview practice. | `2nd`: Second-interview practice. | `3rd`: Third-interview practice. | `closing`: Closing / salary-negotiation practice. | `job-specific`: Job-specific coaching. | `other`: Anything that does not fit the other buckets..
content_mdNoMarkdown for the custom directory page. Sending null removes the custom page and restores the default grid; sending a string replaces the whole page. Directives, each ALONE on its own line: `[plan-progress]`, `[directory:<tag-id>]`, `[session:<interview-id>]`, `[sessions]`, `[sessions:<term>]`, `[sessions:filter=<term>,limit=<n>]`. Chips, callouts, cards, columns and buttons are available too — formatting guide: https://developer.jobmojito.com/cookbooks/format-content-with-markdown
visibilityNoWho can see the catalogue directory. Options — `public`: Shared across every merchant. Platform admins only — a merchant caller is rejected by row-level security. | `merchant_public`: Listed in the merchant's own catalogue — the normal choice. | `merchant_invite`: Owned by the merchant but not listed; reachable only for invited users. | `merchant_unlisted`: Owned by the merchant but not listed; reachable only via a direct link..
descriptionNoShort description shown on the directory card.
cover_image_urlNoCover image URL shown on the directory card. null clears it.
mojito_language_codeNoLanguage of the directory (one of the platform-languages.json codes). The catalogue groups directories by language.
tags_interview_set_filterNoTag filter selecting which coaching sessions this directory lists: a session appears when its own `tags` contain EVERY tag here (an AND, not an OR). Only `active` coaching/persona sessions with visibility `public` or `merchant_public` are listed. Set the matching tags on the session with the create-interview / job-interview-update `tags` field.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId of the updated directory.
catalogue_urlYesPublic URL of the directory page, when the merchant has a coaching-portal domain configured. Null otherwise.
updated_fieldsYesNames of the fields that were written.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Given the annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/read-only intent, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: only sent fields are written, null clears a nullable field, list fields replace whole collections, and `content_md` can restore the default page. It does not discuss permissions or broader side effects, but the annotation context lowers that burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The main purpose and partial-update nuance are front-loaded, which is good. However, the first paragraph and second paragraph repeat nearly the same use-case enumeration and partial-update statement, making the description more verbose than necessary.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances an agent needs: partial update, null-clearing semantics, and full replacement semantics for list fields. The remaining details live in the schema and parameter descriptions, so the tool is adequately specified.

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 each parameter is already well documented. The description references several fields by name and maps them to intents, but it adds no genuinely new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Clearly specifies the verb `update` and the resource (`coaching catalogue directory`), and enumerates concrete actions: rename, change the session filter, reorder sub-directories, or author custom Markdown. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/get/list catalogue directories.

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 clearly frames this as modifying an existing directory and explains partial-update semantics, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with create/list alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources and actions, with clear category prefixes like [Interviews], [Results], and [Admin]. A few pairs could be confused—create_interview vs. create_interview_from_questions and update_interview vs. set_interview_state—but the descriptions do enough to separate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, generate_*. The main deviation is jobmojito_configuration, which is a noun phrase rather than an action verb, and a few longer names like request_another_interview_attempt break the clean pattern slightly.

Tool Count2/5

With 29 tools, this server is above the 25+ threshold and places a significant navigation burden on an agent. The tools are organized into coherent domains, but several admin/merchant and results tools could likely be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The core interview lifecycle is well covered: create, read, update, list, state changes, result retrieval, and report generation. However, there are notable gaps such as no delete operations for interviews or catalogue directories, no candidate management beyond listing/registration, and no explicit result-decision tool.