DB Planner

Update listing

update_listing

Destructive

Edit a published listing's text: title, summary, description, category, tags. Takes a LISTING id from list_my_listings, not a project id. The public web address is fixed at first publish and does not follow a title change, so existing links keep working. Every field is replaced by what is sent, so send the ones being kept as well as the ones being changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Up to 8 short lowercase tags.
`title`	Yes	Listing title.
`summary`	No	One line saying what the schema is for.
`category`	No	Category slug from the categories list any browse_templates result carries.
`listingId`	Yes	Listing id (uuid), from list_my_listings.
`description`	No	Longer prose about the schema.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`tags`	No
`title`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	No
`category`	Yes
`currency`	No
`createdAt`	No
`projectId`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`cloneCount`	No
`priceCents`	No
`tableCount`	No
`columnCount`	No
`description`	No
`publishedAt`	No
`purchaseCount`	No
`takedownReason`	No
`relationshipCount`	No

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the public web address is fixed at first publish and does not follow title changes, and fields are replaced wholesale so unsent fields will be lost. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: the first defines scope and fields, the second pins the identifier source, and the third conveys two critical replacement and URL behaviors. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential traps for invoking the tool correctly: the correct id source, the wholesale replacement behavior, and the stable public URL. Nothing critical is missing.

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 meaningful semantic value by warning that every field is replaced by what is sent and that the listing id must be a LISTING id, not a project id. This goes beyond the per-field schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a published listing's text' and enumerates the exact fields involved: title, summary, description, category, tags. It also disambiguates the identifier by saying it takes a LISTING id from list_my_listings, 'not a project id,' which separates this tool from project-related siblings.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool to edit a published listing's text, and the listing id must come from list_my_listings rather than a project id. It does not explicitly name publish_listing/unpublish_listing as alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

All DB Planner tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource/action: board retrieval is split into JSON vs image with explicit cross-references, and drawing tools are separated from the generic update_board. Look-alikes like list_documents vs list_diagrams and publish_listing vs use_template are differentiated clearly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: create_project, list_documents, update_board, upsert_org_member. A few noun-only names like my_listings, project_file_counts and template_categories break the pattern, so naming is consistent but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a single server, even though the domains are clustered into org/project/document/board/template areas. The large surface will make tool selection and onboarding heavier for an agent than necessary.

Completeness3/5

Core lifecycle coverage for org/project/document/board/template is mostly present, and update_board serves as a flexible escape hatch. However, the board API reads rectangle/diamond/ellipse/free-text drawings and groups/links but only offers explicit create/erase for strokes and arrows; paid template purchase/access is also left unclear.

Resources

Need Help?