Soleil Clusters

Update cards

update_cards

DestructiveIdempotent

CHANGES cards on one board, one or many per call: each entry is a card id and the fields to set; anything left out keeps its value. A note's height follows its text unless you give h. group moves a card into a section by name. props merge; identifiers replace the set. Cards not on the board come back in not_found.

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": {
      "board_id": "<board_id>",
      "cards": "<cards>"
    },
    "name": "update_cards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cards`	Yes	Each a card id and the fields to set
`draft`	No	The draft key create_boards returned. Pass it on every call about that draft.
`groups`	No	Sections the cards name (group), in order, each with an optional outline color
`board_id`	Yes	The board

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cards`	No
`groups`	No
`updated`	No
`board_id`	No
`warnings`	No
`not_found`	No
`untrusted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / draft

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The draft key create_boards returned. Pass it on every call about that draft.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and non-readOnly, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: omitted fields retain their value (partial update), props merge while identifiers replace, and off-board cards are reported back in not_found rather than silently failing. It does not spell out what the destructive aspect actually destroys or whether group creation is a side effect, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Five dense clauses, no filler, with the mutation and its scope leading. Every sentence carries a distinct fact: batching, partial-update default, height default, group-by-name, merge-vs-replace, and failure reporting.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover the safety profile and return shape, and the description closes the main semantic gaps an agent would hit when writing a batch update. What remains unaddressed is the destructive side effect (whether re-kinding or dropping props can lose data) and any permission prerequisite.

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 stating merge semantics for props, replace semantics for identifiers, and the h-follows-text default. The exact shape of `cards` entries and the draft key handling are left entirely to the schema.

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?

"CHANGES cards on one board, one or many per call" gives a specific verb and resource plus the batch scope, and the mention of group/height/props makes clear this is a field-level update rather than a move or add. It never names the closest siblings (move_cards, add_cards, delete_cards), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the batch-update framing and by the note that cards outside the board land in not_found, but there is no explicit "use this instead of move_cards when..." or "do not use for repositioning" guidance. With move_cards and tag_cards sitting right beside it, an explicit routing sentence is missing.

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

All Soleil Clusters 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.