Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SetLatch

by com.setlatch
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change a request’s status

update_request_status
Destructive

Move a request along: verified (identity confirmed another way; starts the deadline and creates the tasks), in_progress, response_ready, completed (only when every task is done or nothing held) or rejected (outcome required). SetLatch already sets in_progress and response_ready by itself as tasks are worked, so usually only verified, completed or rejected need this. Completed and rejected close the request. To record work on one system use update_task instead.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "update_request_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe site: its slug from list_sites (its id or exact name also work).
statusYesThe new status. received, identity_pending and appealed are set by SetLatch itself.
outcomeNoWhy it was rejected, or a closing note.
request_idYesThe request id: the full id from list_requests (a unique start of it also works).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / status / description
      Added value: +"The new status. received, identity_pending and appealed are set by SetLatch itself."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive, non-idempotent and not read-only, so the safety bar is covered; the description adds real substance by explaining preconditions (completed only when every task is done, rejected needs an outcome) and consequences (completed and rejected close the request). It stops short of stating what happens on an invalid transition or whether a close can be undone.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the list of statuses, and every clause carries real information about state transitions or alternatives. It is dense, with nested parentheticals that take some parsing, but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the semantics of each relevant status, the closing side effects, and the sibling alternative, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and whether closures are reversible.

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 explaining what verified does (starts the deadline, creates tasks) and what outcome means in context. The schema's own enum note only covers received, identity_pending and appealed, so this adds genuine meaning.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource ("Move a request along") and then enumerates the specific target statuses, so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It also names the sibling it is not (update_task) for the adjacent use case.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says which statuses normally need this call because SetLatch sets in_progress and response_ready automatically, which is a real when-to-use rule. It also routes the agent to update_task when the work is on a single system, giving a clear alternative.

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

All SetLatch toolsInspect
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