Skip to main content
Glama

mu

by com.wearmu

Update an ISAMI gi sponsor logo (owner only)

mu_gi_logo_set

Update one gi sponsor placement (by slot from mu_gi_logos) — swap its logo_url, set its status (ok|low|request|missing) and/or add a note (e.g. where the vector was requested). Owner-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoFree note, e.g. 'vector requested from pr@…'.
slotYesPlacement slot, e.g. "lsleeve-kagi" (from mu_gi_logos).
statusNoNew logo-file status.
consentNoWritten permission to embroider this brand on the gi. yes=have written OK; requested=asked, not yet granted; no=declined. Only consent=yes AND status=ok is print-ready — set yes ONLY when you actually hold written permission.
logo_urlNoNew absolute https URL of the hi-res / vector logo.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly identifies authorization (owner-only) and the fields that can be changed, but does not mention side effects, validation, or concurrency. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 40-word sentence that front-loads the main action and efficiently covers purpose, resource, and allowable modifications. No unnecessary words.

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 and schema together cover parameters well, but the tool has no output schema and the description omits return behavior (e.g., success indication). For a mutation tool, this is a gap. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions (e.g., consent values). The description summarizes the actions (swap, set status, add note) but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool updates a gi sponsor placement by slot, listing specific modifiable fields (logo_url, status, note) and constraints (owner-only). This distinguishes it from siblings like mu_gi_logos (list slots) and mu_gi_request_logos (request logos).

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 usage after retrieving slots via mu_gi_logos and notes owner-only restriction, but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives like mu_gi_request_logos. Guidance is present but implicit.

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

All mu 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose; no two tools appear to do the same thing. Even closely related tools (e.g., mu_quote vs mu_rfq_create, mu_preview_mockup vs mu_create_product) are differentiated by read-only vs. action, or draft vs. send.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case with the mu_ prefix, and follow a clear verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. Groups like mu_gi_*, mu_ship_*, mu_rfq_* maintain internal consistency. No arbitrary or ambiguous names.

Tool Count4/5

The tool count of 28 is on the higher side but appropriate for the breadth of functionality (registration, product lifecycle, manufacturing, shipping, sales, admin). It's well within a manageable range for a comprehensive server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core workflows comprehensively: registration, product CRUD (with create, update, retire), manufacturing quotes (informational and RFQ with spec drafting), shipping (CSV, tracking, status updates), sales data, and gi-specific management. Minor gaps include lack of store update/delete and product search, but these are not critical for the main use cases.

Resources