Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Hundo

by finance.hundo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

propose_collectible_edit

Propose a change to one trading card in the user's collection: its condition or grade (a regrade), its notes, where its value comes from (the market price, the user's own value, or one seller's price), or the print a card added by hand really is. Give only what changes. Returns a proposal id and a preview of each change, before and after; to record it, call the confirm_proposal tool with the returned proposalId after the user approves (there is no UI button or proposal card to click in this context). To add copies use propose_collectibles_add; to sell copies use propose_asset_trade.

MCP note: this tool only CREATES a pending proposal; nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called.

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": {
      "assetId": "<assetId>"
    },
    "name": "propose_collectible_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeNoThe grade, 1 to 10 in steps of 0.5.
notesNoThe card's notes, replacing what is there. null clears them.
valueNoWhere the card's value comes from.
graderNoA regrade, or a raw card that was graded: the grading company. Give grade with it.
linkToNoOnly for a card the user added by hand, with no print: the variantId (from search_cards) of the print it is, so it gets a market price. Give its condition or grade with it.
assetIdYesThe card to change: its asset id, from get_assets or from 'held' in search_cards.
conditionNoA new condition for a raw (ungraded) card: nm (Near Mint), lp, mp, hp or dmg. Also turns a graded card back into a raw one.
gradeLabelNoWords on the grade label beyond the number, e.g. 'Black Label'. Give grader and grade with it, also to change only the label.
editsProposalIdNoId of a pending collectible_edit proposal to replace with this one, when the user asks to change it. Omit for a new one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description resolves the apparent tension by disclosing this only creates a pending proposal — nothing is recorded until confirm_proposal is called. It also states the return payload (proposal id plus a before/after preview per change), which annotations cannot convey. That is real added context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then scope of changes, then the return-and-confirm workflow, then sibling disambiguation — a sensible priority order. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the schema verbatim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With nine parameters, a nested value object, and no output schema, the description still supplies what an agent needs: the partial-patch model, the return shape, and the mandatory confirm step. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema carries field-level detail and the baseline is 3. The description still adds a framing the schema lacks: the partial-update contract ('give only what changes') and the conceptual grouping of parameters into regrade / notes / value-source / print-link. It stops short of explaining the editsProposalId replace flow, which only the schema covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Propose a change to one trading card in the user's collection') and then enumerates exactly the changeable facets: condition/grade, notes, value source, and print identity. It explicitly names the two nearest siblings (propose_collectibles_add for adding, propose_asset_trade for selling), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the when ('Give only what changes'), the how-to-complete (call confirm_proposal with the returned proposalId after user approval), an explicit environmental caveat (no UI button or proposal card to click), and named alternatives for adjacent intents. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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

All Hundo 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