Skip to main content
Glama

SesApp Access Sheets

by fr.sesapp

update_fiche

Update an owned access sheet. Same fields as create_fiche. Typical: update instructions with photos/links. Requires Bearer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
latNoCover map + WiFi geofence (150 m).
lonNoCover map + WiFi geofence (150 m).
nameNo
localeNoGuest chrome language. Markdown stays as written. Omit to follow Accept-Language / ?lang=.
wifiNameNoSSID for sesapp:wifi. Hidden until 150 m if wifiPassword is set.
accessCodeNoShown on the generated cover.
phoneNumberNoRequired for sesapp:contact. E.164 preferred.
instructionsNoMarkdown flip-book shown to the guest (this field). Cover (map, name, formattedAddress, accessCode) is generated — do not repeat it here. Split pages with a line containing only --- . Supported: # ## ### headings, paragraphs, **bold**, *italic*, - / 1. lists, [label](https://...), ![alt](https://...). Photos: https URLs only. No file upload — host images yourself. Never put wifiPassword in Markdown; it is unlocked only within 150 m via GPS. Intent hrefs: sesapp:wifi (needs wifiName + wifiPassword) and sesapp:contact (needs phoneNumber). Guest-facing labels: [Ajouter le WiFi] / [Ajouter le contact]. If you omit those links but set the fields, SesApp appends WiFi/contact pages. Example: # Bienvenue Parking au fond à gauche. ![Façade](https://example.com/facade.jpg) --- ## Arrivée Sonnette à gauche. [Itinéraire](https://maps.google.com/?q=48.8566,2.3522) --- [Ajouter le WiFi](sesapp:wifi) --- [Ajouter le contact](sesapp:contact)
wifiPasswordNoDo not put in instructions. Unlocked within 150 m.
formattedAddressNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / locale
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Guest chrome language. Markdown stays as written. Omit to follow Accept-Language / ?lang=.",
+  "enum": [
+    "fr",
+    "en"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Requires Bearer' and that the sheet must be owned, but it does not disclose update semantics such as whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, whether the update is a partial patch, any side effects, or what the response contains. This is a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.

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 four short sentences, each earning its place: action and scope, field cross-reference, typical use case, and authentication requirement. It is front-loaded with the core operation and contains no filler.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 11 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers auth and ownership but omits update semantics (e.g., overwrite vs merge), required id behavior, and any response expectations. The schema helps with field meanings, but the description alone does not give an agent enough behavioral context to call it safely.

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?

The description adds the cross-reference 'Same fields as create_fiche', which is useful for agents that know the create tool, but it does not explain individual parameters. The schema itself carries 73% coverage with rich descriptions, especially for instructions and locale, so the description does not need to compensate heavily. The remaining undocumented fields (id, name, formattedAddress) are straightforward.

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 opens with 'Update an owned access sheet', which is a specific verb + resource and adds the ownership scoping that distinguishes it from a generic update. It also explicitly references create_fiche, helping the agent see this is the update counterpart of that tool.

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 a clear context for when to use this tool ('Typical: update instructions with photos/links') and states an implicit precondition (the sheet must be owned). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or say 'use this instead of create_fiche when the fiche already exists', but the update-vs-create contrast is strongly implied by 'Same fields as create_fiche'.

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

All SesApp Access Sheets 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: fiches have create/get/list/update/delete, shares have create/list/revoke, webhooks have register/list/update/delete, and geocode/status/subscribe are separate supporting operations. There is no meaningful overlap between tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as create_fiche, revoke_share, and register_webhook. Minor deviations exist—status is noun-only, subscribe has no explicit object, and list_fiches pluralizes while create_fiche does not—but the naming remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Fifteen tools is within the ideal range and each tool maps to a concrete operation needed for the service: fiche lifecycle, sharing, webhooks, and account management. No redundant or filler tools are present.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD for fiches, share creation/listing/revocation, webhook registration/listing/update/deletion, and account subscription/status. Agents can complete the main workflows around creating, sharing, and managing access sheets without dead ends.

Resources