Skip to main content
Glama

bimhouse

by house.bim

update_house

[EN] Update an existing house's bim.json (needs edit_token): swap elements or patch project meta; returns a re-run houki verdict. Versioned each save. / 既存物件の bim.json を更新する。edit_token (create_house の返り値) が必要。elements (bim.json v1 要素配列) を渡すと差し替え、project (object) でメタ (name/construction_jpy/proposed_gross_m2 等) のみ更新も可。get_house_bim で現状を取得 → 編集 → update_house → 返り値の houki (法規再判定) を確認、のループで自分の LLM だけで設計改善が完結する。保存ごとに履歴 (bim_versions) が残る。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNo変更メモ (履歴に残る・500字まで)
slugYes物件 slug (必須)
projectNoメタ更新 (name / construction_jpy / proposed_gross_m2 / proposed_floors / proposed_structure / proposed_rooms / project_type['new'|'renovation'|'change_of_use'] / renovation_scope[配列] / renovation_scope_m2 / existing_year_built / seismic_retrofit)。project_type を renovation|change_of_use に変えると、以後この物件の get_build_plan/cost.json は改修工程・改修単価で再計算される (基礎・躯体等は既定でコスト¥0=既存流用)。
elementsNobim.json v1 要素配列 (全置換)。省略時は既存要素を維持
edit_tokenYescreate_house が返した edit_token (必須)
elements_jsonNoelements の JSON 文字列版 (strict-schema クライアント用)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns a re-run houki verdict, is versioned each save, and that changing project_type alters cost calculations. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden; it covers key behaviors well but does not mention permission requirements beyond edit_token.

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 description is front-loaded with English, then repeated in Japanese. It is clear and structured, but the bilingual content adds length. No extraneous sentences; each sentence provides value.

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?

Given 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description explains return value (houki verdict), versioning, and the iterative workflow. It is thorough enough for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior and usage pattern.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema, and the description adds significant extra context: elements is a full replacement, project lists subfields with effects (e.g., renovation cost), edit_token must come from create_house, note is a 500-char memo, and elements_json is for strict-schema clients. Schema coverage is 100%.

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 explicitly states it updates an existing house's bim.json by swapping elements or patching project meta, and returns a re-run houki verdict. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_house_bim (read) and create_house (create).

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?

The description mandates edit_token (from create_house) and outlines a workflow: get current bim, edit, update, check verdict. It explains when to use elements vs project and the effect of changing project_type on cost. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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

All bimhouse 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some potential overlap exists (e.g., get_site_context and get_houki_rules both provide site conditions, and set_site_context vs. upsert_zoning_rule could be confused). Overall, descriptions help disambiguate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools predominantly use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_house, update_house, set_visibility). A few outliers like houki_check and whoami break the pattern, but naming is mostly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is heavy but covers a broad domain (house design, construction, catalog, contractors, admin). Some tools are niche (e.g., list_incomplete_addresses, set_forkable), but each serves a clear purpose. Could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

Core operations for house lifecycle (create, read, update, check) are present. Lacks explicit delete/archive for houses (only set_visibility), and no tool to update site context directly (only set via set_site_context). Minor gaps but domain is well-covered.

Resources