Skip to main content
Glama

Proof Holdings

by holdings.proof
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

update_circle

Destructive

Update a Circle's name and/or owner name. Omitted fields are left unchanged; the profile/identity binding is create-only.

ACCESS: needs a Proof account. Authenticate this client (Claude Code: /mcp → Authenticate), then call this tool again. start_login does NOT open this tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCircle ID
nameNoNew name for the Circle
owner_nameNoHow this Circle's members know its owner ("Dad", "Giorgi"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / owner_name
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "maxLength": 100,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "How this Circle's members know its owner (\"Dad\", \"Giorgi\"). The bots name the owner by it; while it is empty they name nobody — the Circle's name labels the group, never the person. Trimmed by the API; null or an empty value clears it."
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=true annotations by disclosing partial-update semantics (omitted fields unchanged), a create-only constraint on the profile/identity binding, and a concrete authentication requirement with remediation steps. It does not explain why the operation carries a destructive hint, but the added behavioral context is substantial.

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?

The first sentence front-loads the action and mutable fields, followed by concise behavioral notes and a clearly separated ACCESS block. Minor verbosity in the auth remediation, but every sentence carries usable information.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, partial-update behavior, constraints, and authentication. Return-value information is the only notable omission, which is acceptable for a simple update.

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% and the owner_name schema entry is richly documented (trimming, null-clearing, member-facing naming). The description references the same fields but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a Circle's name and/or owner name), and explicitly scopes which fields are mutable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_profile or update_hitl by naming 'Circle', though it does not call out an alternative tool directly.

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?

'Omitted fields are left unchanged; the profile/identity binding is create-only' gives useful partial-update and constraint context, and the ACCESS block tells the agent when the tool is callable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance against alternatives such as create_circle or update_profile.

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

All Proof Holdings 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