Playbook

Update asset status

update_asset_status

DestructiveIdempotent

Set the status label on an asset (e.g. 'Approved', 'In Review', 'Rejected'). The status value is created on the workspace if it doesn't already exist.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_asset_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	Yes	Asset token
`status`	Yes	Status label to set
`organization`	No	Workspace slug, as returned by list_organizations. Omit it when the account has a single workspace — it is then resolved from your token. Pass it only when the account has several, or when you mean a workspace other than the obvious one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

removedInput schema / properties / context

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "token",
-  "status",
-  "context"
-]New value: +[
+  "token",
+  "status"
+]

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: an unknown status value is silently created at the workspace level, which is a side effect the agent should anticipate. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not explain what is overwritten when an existing status is replaced, nor discuss permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most consequential behavior. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core is covered: what is set and the create-if-missing side effect. Missing is the effect on the prior status value and whether the operation is reversible, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by supplying illustrative status labels ('Approved', 'In Review', 'Rejected') and by clarifying that the status argument creates a workspace-level value when novel. The organization parameter remains solely schema-documented, which is acceptable.

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 ('Set the status label on an asset') and gives concrete example values. It does not distinguish this tool from the close sibling set_asset_approval, leaving some ambiguity about which one governs approval state versus a free-form status label.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance beyond the implicit mutation of an asset. Alternatives such as set_asset_approval or update_asset for metadata changes are never mentioned, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

All Playbook 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?