Tango

Update a worker

update_worker

Update a worker's settings. Supports roles — the list of roles used to match tasks the worker can claim — and the monthly spend cap in USD: when the worker's recorded spend (hosted plus self-reported) reaches the cap, it can no longer claim tasks until an owner or admin raises or clears the cap. Pass null to clear the cap. API reference: https://tango.applayer.io/docs/api/tools/update_worker

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`roles`	No	Full replacement role list (comma-split parts of the original roles string, e.g. ['coder','tester']). Deduplicated case-insensitively. The worker pulls tasks whose required role matches any of these.
`worker_id`	Yes	Worker id to update.
`monthly_spend_cap_usd`	Yes	Monthly spend ceiling in USD, or null to remove the cap.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / roles

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Full replacement role list (comma-split parts of the original roles string, e.g. ['coder','tester']). Deduplicated case-insensitively. The worker pulls tasks whose required role matches any of these.",
+  "items": {
+    "maxLength": 60,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 20,
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description goes further by disclosing the operational consequence of the spend cap (the worker can no longer claim tasks once recorded spend — hosted plus self-reported — reaches it) and that clearing/raising the cap requires an owner or admin. It does not clarify reversibility of role replacement, 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the two supported settings with their semantics; every sentence carries information. The trailing API reference URL is the only mild filler, and the description is a bit dense but not padded.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage on all three parameters, the description supplies the remaining behavioral context an agent needs (cap mechanics, null-clears, owner/admin requirement). No output schema exists, and none is needed for an update tool, though the effect of role replacement on in-flight claims is left unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that the cap blocks task claiming and that passing null clears it, and frames roles as the matching list for task claiming. These are behavioral consequences the field descriptions only partially convey.

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+resource ('Update a worker's settings') and enumerates the two updatable fields (roles, monthly spend cap), which clearly separates it from create_worker, archive_worker, and delete_worker. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this to change a worker's roles or spend cap, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance or comparison to alternatives like update_task or bulk_update_tasks. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

All Tango tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?