projects.updateOverwrite the supplied business fields on an accessible private SparkLaunch project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| stage | No | ||
| industry | No | ||
| one_liner | No | ||
| project_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| entity_type | No | ||
| business_model | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No | ||
| confirmation_token | No | ||
| business_description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the 'Overwrite' wording mostly restates the structured safety profile. The description does add useful context that only 'supplied' fields are overwritten and that the project must be 'accessible' and 'private.' It does not explain the role of confirmation_token or idempotency_key, which may be important for this destructive operation.
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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a focused tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing behavioral and parameter detail. The structure itself is sound.
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?
With 11 parameters and only 1 required, the description does not cover update semantics, idempotency behavior, confirmation token requirements, or the meaning of omitted fields. Even with an output schema present, an agent lacks enough context to safely invoke this destructive update operation. The description is too sparse for the complexity of the tool.
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%, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining 11 parameters, but it only groups them as 'business fields' without defining individual semantics. It offers no clarity on project_id being the required identifier, nor on idempotency_key, confirmation_token, entity_type, or business_model. Omitted fields are implied to be unchanged, but this is not explicit.
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 uses a clear verb ('Overwrite') and identifies the target resource ('business fields on an accessible private SparkLaunch project'). This distinguishes it from projects.create and projects.get, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The scope ('supplied business fields') is useful for an agent deciding whether this is the right update entry point.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as projects.create, projects.invite_collaborator, or incorporation.update_draft. The name implies 'update existing project,' but no explicit condition, prerequisite, or alternative is stated. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and sibling list.
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.
Domain prefixes (crm., cap_table., landing.) clearly separate broad modules, and most tools target a specific resource and action. However, within modules there are boundary overlaps—crm.add_contact_note vs crm.log_activity and cap_table.dilution_preview vs cap_table.simulate_raise—where descriptions must be read carefully to avoid a wrong pick.
The dominant pattern is module.verb_noun (e.g., crm.create_lead, cap_table.update_stakeholder), which is clear and readable. But a subset of top-level tools uses object_verb with flat underscores (e.g., shortlink_create, qr_generate, campaign_archive) and one outlier (campaign_stats) breaks the verb pattern, so conventions are mixed.
86 tools is an extreme surface for any single MCP server, well past the 50+ threshold that makes coherent selection impractical. Even though the features span several business domains, this would be far more usable split into focused servers per module.
The covered domains are broadly complete: cap table, CRM, incorporation, landing, projects, sparkroom, tasks, and validation all have read/write workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps remain (no campaign listing/update, no branding palette delete/update, no contact deletion) but none of them blocks the main product workflows.