Skip to main content
Glama

Update journal

well_update_journal

Update one journal. Only an owner or administrator can manage journals. Connector-owned and system journals stay protected; entries and posting mappings prevent deletion or a type change. Use journal_id from well_query_records on journals.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
is_activeNo
journal_idYes
workspaceIdNo
journal_typeNo
workspace_idNoTarget workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
conversation_idNoThe conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
idempotency_keyNoOptional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
workspace_scopeNoRestrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.
default_debit_account_idNo
default_credit_account_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNo
dataNo
errorNo
successYes
reply_linesNo
conversation_idNoThe conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
near_candidatesNo
newly_connectedNoTools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
conversation_id_noteNoPresent only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
conversation_id_sourceNoWhere the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.
near_candidates_truncatedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / code
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "additionalProperties": false,
      +    "properties": {
      +      "company_id": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      },
      +      "name": {
      +        "type": "string"
      +      }
      +    },
      +    "required": [
      +      "company_id",
      +      "name"
      +    ],
      +    "type": "object"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / near_candidates_truncated
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / reply_lines
      Added value: +{
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds material context beyond that – authorization requirements and the fact that entries and posting mappings block a type change. The deletion sentence is slightly noisy for an update tool but is consistent with destructiveHint=false rather than contradicting it.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The deletion clause sits oddly in an update description and could be trimmed, but overall density is good.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Mutation semantics, permissions, and protected-resource rules are covered, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, for an 11-parameter write tool with low schema description coverage, the description leaves too many fields unexplained to be fully complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 11 parameters and only 36% schema description coverage, the description needs to carry real weight, yet it explains only where journal_id comes from. Nothing is said about name, is_active, journal_type enum semantics, or the default debit/credit account fields, leaving the bulk of the surface undocumented.

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?

"Update one journal" gives a specific verb and resource with single-record scope, which distinguishes it from list/view siblings. It doesn't explicitly contrast with well_update_journal_entry or well_create_journal, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 states the permission prerequisite (owner or administrator) and the protection rules (connector-owned and system journals), plus a concrete pointer to well_query_records as the source of journal_id. What's missing is explicit guidance on when to pick this over well_update_journal_entry.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources