Skip to main content
Glama

Latchbell

Update my team

update_team

Owners only (needs sign-in): Only at the owner's request. change adds or updates by id: name, kind (person, crew or place), active, capacity (a place only: how many at once), services (item ids, null for everything), hours (weekday 0–6 to [start, end] minutes after midnight, null for the business's hours). remove takes ids; what's booked with them stays until moved.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changeNo
removeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description explicitly exposes a 'remove' operation that takes ids and removes team entries. Even with the note that existing bookings stay until moved, describing a removal action contradicts the annotation that the tool does not perform destructive updates.

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 definition is dense but front-loaded and has no filler. However, the long nested sentence and the near-redundant 'Owners only' plus 'Only at the owner's request' slightly reduce readability.

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 a nested mutation tool with no output schema, it gives the key permissions, field semantics, and removal consequence. It does not explain response behavior, reversibility, or array-size limits, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it explains id-based changes, name, kind enum values, active, capacity as place-only, services as item ids or null for everything, and hours as weekday-to-minute ranges or null for business hours. It also explains that remove takes ids.

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 states a specific verb and resource: updating 'my team' by changing or removing entries by id. It names team-specific fields and kinds (person, crew, place), making the tool distinguishable from business or catalog updates.

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 clear usage constraints: owners only, sign-in required, and only at the owner's request. It explains the two operation modes (change vs. remove) but does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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