Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GenHTTP Lambda

by dev.genhttp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change a lambda's settings

update_lambda
DestructiveIdempotent

Change how a lambda's editor opens: view 'Simple' shows the app, how it is doing and a box to ask for a change - for an owner who does not write code - and 'Full' every section, the code, files, data, versions and logs included. Only the default: whoever opens the editor can switch for themselves, and that choice stays theirs. Only do this when the user asks for it.

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": {
      "privateKey": "<privateKey>",
      "view": "<view>"
    },
    "name": "update_lambda"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viewYesHow the editor opens: 'Full' (the default) shows every section, 'Simple' only the app, how it is doing and a box to ask for a change. Simple suits an owner who is not going to read the code - use it when the user asks for a simple editor, or says they are not a developer.
privateKeyYesThe editor key.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / view / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "Full",
+  "Simple"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / view / type
      Removed value: -"string"
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds real context beyond that: the change only alters the default and does not lock anyone in, which materially reframes the 'destructive' hint as low-blast-radius. It omits permission/auth requirements and confirmation behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, but the rest is a long run-on with em-dash asides and elliptical phrasing ('and Full every section, the code, files...'), which takes effort to parse. Most sentences carry useful content, but the structure is muddled rather than crisp.

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 only two fully-required, fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope of effect, and when to invoke, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves auth/permission prerequisites and any confirmation or return signal unstated, a minor gap for this complexity level.

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% and the 'view' enum already documents both values in detail, so the description's prose about 'Simple' vs 'Full' largely restates structured data. The added nuance ('for an owner who does not write code') is marginal, and 'privateKey' is not explained at all beyond the schema's 'The editor key.' Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Change how a lambda's editor opens') and enumerates the two view modes, so the agent knows exactly what is being modified. It does not differentiate against siblings like update_feature or change_code, but the scope (editor view default) is unambiguous on its own.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives an explicit gate ('Only do this when the user asks for it') and an explicit reason not to act preemptively ('whoever opens the editor can switch for themselves, and that choice stays theirs'), which is a genuine when-not condition. It stops short of naming alternative tools, but no sibling covers this action.

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

All GenHTTP Lambda toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources