Pineprompt

Update Project Tool

update-project-tool

DestructiveIdempotent

Overwrites the given fields; previous values are not kept. Update an existing project. Every field is optional, so send only the fields to change; a field that is omitted keeps its current value. Pass brand_id to designate one of the project's brands as its own brand, the one visibility is anchored against. The own brand is implicit in every segment and is never ignored, so it leaves any segments and sheds any ignored mark as it takes the role; a previous own brand derives back to discovered. Pass null to leave the project without an own brand.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "update-project-tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	A human-readable name for the project (max 120 characters).
`brand_id`	No	The numeric id of one of the project's brands to designate as the own brand, or null to leave the project without one. The brand leaves any segments and sheds any ignored mark as it takes the role.
`project_id`	Yes	The numeric id of the project to update.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description goes further by spelling out what destruction means (prior field values are not kept) and by detailing the cascading side effects of reassigning brand_id — the brand leaves segments, drops ignored status, and the previous own brand reverts to discovered. Missing only failure behavior (e.g. a brand_id not belonging to the project) and auth requirements.

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 destructive caveat is front-loaded, which is the right choice, and each sentence carries information. The brand_id explanation is dense domain jargon ("sheds any ignored mark", "derives back to discovered") that costs more re-reading than it should, and the lead-in ordering buries the one-line purpose behind the overwrite warning.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the important ground: partial-update semantics, destructive overwrite, and the non-obvious brand_id role change. Auth/prerequisite and error-condition information are the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description does add some meaning beyond it (visibility anchoring and the previous-own-brand reversion to discovered). However, the claim "Every field is optional" directly conflicts with the schema's required project_id, which is a meaningful semantics error an agent could act on.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing project") and defines the mutation model (partial overwrite, omitted fields retained). It never references the sibling update tools (update-brand-tool, update-segment-tool, etc.), so the agent must infer scope from the name alone, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 real call-pattern guidance — "send only the fields to change; a field that is omitted keeps its current value" — which is the main usage decision an agent faces here. It offers no when-to-use-vs-alternatives framing (e.g. update-project-tool vs create-project-tool/delete-project-tool) and no prerequisites such as required permissions.

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

All Pineprompt tools Inspect

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

Need Help?