Skip to main content
Glama

Set Current Site Budget

set_current_site_budget
Destructive

Select a site's current budget after checking it belongs to that site. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

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": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "budgetId": "<budgetId>"
    },
    "name": "set_current_site_budget"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteIdYes
budgetIdYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: the site-budget relationship is validated, MCP approval requirements are organization-configurable, and business workflow approvals always apply.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds relevant approval context. It is compact and mostly free of repetition, though the approval sentence is somewhat generic.

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?

The description covers validation and approval behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive mutation it does not state what happens to any previously current budget or otherwise clarify the replacement side effect.

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 0%, so the description must carry more of the parameter burden. It at least identifies the two core concepts (site and budget) and adds the key validation constraint that the budget must belong to the site, but it does not clarify the budgetId record type or other parameter constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Select a site's current budget." It clearly distinguishes a site-scoped budget operation from the sibling set_current_deal_budget by resource, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool by requiring a check that the budget belongs to the site, and it notes approval requirements. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus create_site_budget, update_budget, or set_current_deal_budget.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources