update_annotation_statusUpdate an annotation’s status, e.g. to mark it in_progress or completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| annotation_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| dom | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| type | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| element | No | ||
| page_url | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| selector | No | ||
| created_at | No | ||
| page_title | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| updated_at | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false; description adds minimal value (only examples of status values) but does not disclose potential side effects like required permissions or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail to be minimally viable; important context like parameter purpose or usage constraints is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool (2 params, enum status) and presence of output schema, description is partially complete but omits information on valid status transitions and error handling, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; description partially explains the 'status' parameter via examples ('in_progress or completed') but offers no clarity on 'annotation_id' parameter or its format/constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Update an annotation’s status' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., get_annotation, list_annotations) which are read-only or different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like add_comment or create_github_issue; no when-not or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.