Frostbyte

update_project

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a project's name or product context (the one-line pitch in description, target user, problem, why-it-wins, stage and current focus that keep planning and AI aligned). Owner only.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "context": "<context>"
    },
    "name": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New project name — max 30 characters.
`context`	Yes	Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID
`targetUser`	No	The specific person the product serves (max 180 chars)
`description`	No	One-line pitch: what the product does (max 150 chars). Shown on the Product page and dashboard.
`whyThisWins`	No	The product's wedge or advantage (max 240 chars)
`currentFocus`	No	The owner's immediate goal in one short line (max 140 chars). Empty string clears it. Only set it when the user asks.
`productStage`	No	Where the product is in its lifecycle
`problemToSolve`	No	The pain the product fixes (max 240 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the ownership/permission requirement, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It does not explain what is destructive — e.g. whether omitted fields are cleared or retained — which is the key risk an agent needs resolved given destructiveHint=true.

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?

One front-loaded sentence: verb and resource first, then the field enumeration, then the permission constraint. The nested parenthetical is dense but every element corresponds to an editable field, so little is wasted.

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?

For a nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, the description covers purpose and authorization but omits update semantics (merge vs replace) and any indication of the returned result. That is an adequate minimum, not a complete picture.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented, including length caps, the productStage enum, and the clearing behavior of currentFocus. The parenthetical in the description maps fields to product-context concepts (pitch, wedge, stage, focus), adding modest interpretive value but no syntax or behavior beyond 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (project) and enumerates the substantive fields that can change: name, one-line pitch, target user, problem, why-it-wins, stage, current focus. It clearly distinguishes update_project from create_project and get_project by naming the mutable surface, though it never explicitly contrasts with update_area/update_release.

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 'Owner only' clause supplies a real precondition for use, which is more than most descriptions offer. However there is no guidance on when to prefer this over create_project or how it differs from other update_* siblings, and no statement about partial vs full updates.

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

All Frostbyte tools Inspect

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

Need Help?