Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Mencoro

by com.mencoro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update a project

update_project
DestructiveIdempotent

Rename a project, replace the website domains and brand names it is monitored for, or both. A rename alone removes nothing. brandProfile replaces both lists entirely: pass every domain and name the project should keep. A domain or brand name left out is removed, and later checks no longer match on it; results already recorded are not re-matched or deleted. Show the user the full new lists before calling. A member restricted to selected projects may not change the website domains, only resubmit them unchanged. Safe to retry.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>",
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
projectIdYes
brandProfileNoReplaces the website domains and brand names the project is monitored for.
organizationIdYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesThe project after the rename; null when no name was given.
brandProfileYesThe brand profile after the replacement; null when no brandProfile was given.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / brandProfile / type
      Previous value: -[
-  "null",
-  "object"
-]New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by explaining exactly what destruction means: brandProfile replaces both lists entirely, omitted domains/names are removed and stop matching in later checks, but already-recorded results are not re-matched or deleted. It also discloses the restricted-member permission limit, so an agent knows the failure mode. 'Safe to retry' restates idempotentHint but the rest is substantive added context.

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 the destructive replacement semantics, then the permission caveat — a logical order with no wasted framing. It is dense with short clauses, and 'Safe to retry' is near-redundant with idempotentHint, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers replacement semantics, data-loss scope (historical results preserved), permission restrictions, a user-confirmation step, and retry safety, and an output schema exists to cover return values. Nothing material an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only brandProfile carries a schema description), so the description must compensate, and it does: it spells out that brandProfile is a full replacement requiring every domain and name to be resubmitted, and that a rename alone removes nothing. organizationId and projectId remain unexplained, but they are conventional identifiers.

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+resource statement — 'Rename a project, replace the website domains and brand names it is monitored for, or both' — that covers the entire scope of the operation. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_organization, update_competitor, and rename_cluster, which touch different resources.

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 context: use it for a rename, a brandProfile replacement, or both, and it specifies a precondition ('Show the user the full new lists before calling') plus a permission-based exclusion for members restricted to selected projects. It does not name an alternative tool for cases where this one is inappropriate, so it falls 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.

All Mencoro toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources