Update part of a knowledge base — fields you don't pass stay as they are (server-side PATCH merge).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| top_k | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| instructions | No | ||
| max_distance | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / top_kAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Top K"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that the update is a server-side PATCH merge, meaning unspecified fields are preserved, which is a critical behavioral trait not evident from the schema alone. It does not cover error cases (e.g., non-existent knowledge base) or side effects, but the core mutation behavior is clearly described.
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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and adds the key merge behavior. Every word earns its place, and the dash and parenthetical clarify the PATCH semantics without unnecessary detail.
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?
The tool has a moderate complexity with 5 parameters, but the description focuses only on the update semantics. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered. However, it lacks guidance on parameter constraints (e.g., valid ranges for top_k or max_distance) and does not explicitly mention that the knowledge base must already exist, which is important for an update operation. Overall, it is adequate but leaves room for more context.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its parameters, so the description must compensate. However, it only says that not-passed fields stay unchanged, without explaining the meaning of individual parameters (e.g., top_k, max_distance, instructions). While 'name' and 'description' are self-explanatory, 'top_k' and 'max_distance' lack context, leaving a significant gap in parameter understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the operation ('Update') on a specific resource ('knowledge base') and clarifies that it performs a partial update via server-side PATCH merge. This distinguishes it from related tools like create_knowledge_base (creation) and get_knowledge_base (retrieval). The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies the tool is used for modifying an existing knowledge base, and the PATCH merge note clarifies that omitted fields retain their values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_knowledge_base for new resources, or update_agent for agents), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than stated.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct by domain and action. A few pairs like add_knowledge_file vs add_knowledge_text or build_knowledge_index vs patch_knowledge_index could cause confusion, but descriptions clearly differentiate them.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*). A few outliers like tenant_info, usage_stats, and page_context_stats are noun-first, deviating slightly from the otherwise uniform scheme.
With 50 tools, this is a very large surface that exceeds typical well-scoped server sizes. Even for a broad platform management API, the sheer number makes it heavy and potentially overwhelming, matching the '50+' extreme mismatch category.
The server covers creation, reading, updating, and listing for most resources but lacks any delete operations (no delete_agent, delete_knowledge_base, delete_skill, delete_share, delete_storyline, delete_page_context). This is a significant gap in lifecycle coverage that will force agents to work around missing functionality.