Skip to main content
Glama

opointo

by com.opointo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update supplied components

update_components
Read-onlyIdempotent

Needs a subscription. Reads the project's .opointo/files.json and returns only the opointo-supplied files that changed since export, so it works months later with no share code. Never touches the customer's own screens, and flags the rare change that needs a code edit rather than a copy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoonly when the answer's page.next asks for it
currentNoonly when a split-unverified blocker asks: each named file's hash, from its command
manifestYesthe parsed .opointo/files.json (the object or its files array)
acceptSplitNoonly once the customer agreed: the paths split-customer-edited blockers name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / page
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "only when the answer's page.next asks for it",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / acceptSplit / description
      Previous value: -"only after the customer agreed to replace a file they edited: the paths named by `split-customer-edited` blockers"New value: +"only once the customer agreed: the paths split-customer-edited blockers name"
    • changedInput schema / properties / current / description
      Previous value: -"only when a `split-unverified` blocker asks for it: the hash of each named file on disk, from the command the blocker gives"New value: +"only when a split-unverified blocker asks: each named file's hash, from its command"
    • changedInput schema / properties / manifest / description
      Previous value: -"the parsed contents of .opointo/files.json from the project root (the whole object, or just its `files` array)"New value: +"the parsed .opointo/files.json (the object or its files array)"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it names the file it reads, scopes the output to changed opointo-supplied files, guarantees it never touches the customer's own screens, and discloses the flagging behavior for changes needing a code edit rather than a copy.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the subscription prerequisite front-loaded before the core behavior. Information is well ordered and each sentence carries a distinct point (precondition, mechanism/benefit, scope guarantee).

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what is returned (only changed opointo-supplied files) and the flagging outcome. Given 100% schema coverage and explicit annotations, the remaining gap is only the absence of named sibling alternatives, which is minor for a four-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including their conditional triggers. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema (it only restates the manifest concept as .opointo/files.json), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: it reads the project's .opointo/files.json and returns the opointo-supplied files that changed since export. That is clear and disambiguates the misleadingly named 'update' tool (which is actually a read), but it never names a sibling (install_component, get_component, verify_app) to differentiate itself explicitly.

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?

It gives a precondition ('Needs a subscription') and a benefit context ('works months later with no share code'), and the schema params carry conditional triggers ('only when the answer's page.next asks for it'). However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over the sibling tools, so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All opointo toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources