Skip to main content
Glama

proofite

by com.proofite

Update a topic inbox

update_source
Idempotent

Change a topic inbox: rename it, change its description, raise or lower its priority in the briefing, set a per-inbox technicality level, temporarily exclude it from the briefing or pause it entirely.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name for the inbox
priorityNo1 marginal … 5 always first
is_activeNofalse = stop collecting entirely
source_idYesId from list_sources
descriptionNoWhat belongs in here — it also guides the editor
technicalityNoOverride just for this inbox
include_in_digestNofalse = keep collecting but leave it out of the briefing

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context by listing specific changes and clarifying that 'temporarily exclude from briefing' and 'pause entirely' map to include_in_digest and is_active booleans. No contradictions.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Change a topic inbox:') and then lists all possible changes in a compact, comma-separated fashion. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core operations well. It omits the return value (e.g., the updated source object) and does not mention that updates are partial. However, given that the schema explicitly describes each parameter and the annotations cover idempotency and safety, the description is mostly complete for a mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the same parameters in natural language (rename→name, change description→description, etc.) but does not add deeper meaning or syntax details beyond the schema. The cohesive grouping is nice but not essential new information.

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 uses a specific verb 'Change' and resource 'topic inbox', then enumerates the exact fields that can be modified (name, description, priority, technicality, include_in_digest, is_active). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_source (creation) and delete_source (removal).

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 implies this tool modifies an existing inbox but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_source for new inboxes, delete_source for removal, add_feed for adding feeds). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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

All proofite toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.

Resources