Skip to main content
Glama

suggest_edit

Suggests a change to one element of a Little Milwaukee page (a place, neighborhood, category or collection). Name the page by its URL or path, for example /places/fish-fry/tracks-tavern, and the element: title, why, address, neighborhood, hours, price_band, phone, website, founded, ownership, category or status on a place; overview, description or municipality on a neighborhood; name, plural or description on a category; same_as- or tag- for the nth link or tag (an empty value removes it), same_as-new or tag-new to add one; photo- for a photo's caption or credit. Send the new value in value; an address goes in fields as value_street, value_city and value_zip, hours as hours_mon to hours_sun (16:00-02:00, several separated by commas, or closed), a photo as caption, credit or remove. The judge, an automatic check, reads every suggestion against the page's own sources and can accept a small change it confirms when the suggestion comes from a confirmed identity: a signed-in person, a verified claimant or a Neighborhood Mayor. Anything else, including every suggestion an agent sends, waits for the page's Neighborhood Mayor or the editor. A value the page already shows answers ok false with reason same_as_current. The answer holds a status_url for the decision. A source_url helps them read it; the judge does not count it as a source.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoWhy the change is right, for the mayor and the editor.
pageYesThe page URL or path, for example /places/fish-fry/tracks-tavern.
valueNoThe new value of a single-value element.
fieldsNoThe parts of an address, hours or photo change.
contactNoAn email or phone for the outcome; only the mayor and the editor see it.
elementYesThe element id, for example phone or same_as-0.
source_urlNoA web address where a person can check the new value, such as the business's own page. Strongly preferred.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the automatic judge, which identities can get small changes auto-confirmed, that agent-submitted suggestions wait for a mayor or editor, the same_as_current response case, and the status_url returned for the decision. It also clarifies that source_url is for human verification and is not counted as a source by the judge.

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 and then supplies dense but relevant details about elements, fields, and workflow. It is long and lacks paragraph breaks, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity and the variety of editable elements.

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 complex mutation-suggestion tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, approval behavior, and response hints such as status_url and ok false. The main gap is that collection-specific elements are not enumerated even though collections are listed as a page type.

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?

Although schema description coverage is already 100%, the description adds rich meaning by enumerating valid element IDs for places, neighborhoods, categories, links, tags, and photos. It also explains special forms such as same_as-<n>, tag-new, photo-<n>, empty-value removal, address fields, and hours formatting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: suggesting a change to one element of a Little Milwaukee page. It names the page types and element scope clearly, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as suggest or suggest_place.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains how to identify the page and element, and it details the approval path, which gives useful context for use. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools like suggest_place, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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