OTP

Push a KPI value

update_kpi

Destructive

Push a KPI value (the actual measured number for a period). This is how an agent reports 'this is what I did this week / this month' to its scorecard. Looks up the KPI by title under a given owner, then writes the value. periodStart defaults to the start of the current period for the KPI's time grain (e.g. start of this week for a weekly KPI).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "owner_external_id": "<owner_external_id>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "update_kpi"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Optional context. E.g. 'after 12pm send wave'.
`title`	Yes	The KPI title (case-insensitive match against the KPI's stored title). E.g. 'Cold emails sent'.
`value`	Yes	The actual measured value for the period. E.g. 30.
`period_start`	No	ISO date for the period start (YYYY-MM-DD). If omitted, computes start of current period from the KPI's time grain.
`owner_external_id`	Yes	The agent or human external id that owns the KPI. E.g. 'AGT_DIRK'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description is consistent with that while adding real context: the write is a title-based lookup under an owner followed by a value write, so a missing KPI surfaces as a lookup failure rather than a silent create. It does not say whether an existing value for the same period is overwritten, which is the key gap for a destructive-hinted tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, with no filler. The opening parenthetical and the 'this is how an agent reports' sentence overlap slightly in framing, keeping it just short of maximum conciseness.

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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, mechanism and defaulting behavior. It leaves unaddressed whether a prior value in that period is replaced or rejected, which is the remaining thing an agent would want before calling.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is already 100%, so the schema documents title matching, value, notes and owner_external_id. The description adds only the concrete time-grain example ('start of this week for a weekly KPI'), which the schema states abstractly as 'time grain' — a modest value add over a fully covered schema, so baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Push a KPI value'), clarifies what a value is ('the actual measured number for a period'), and describes the underlying lookup-then-write mechanism. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like list_my_kpis.

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?

Gives a concrete use framing ('this is how an agent reports what I did this week / this month to its scorecard'), which tells the agent the situation that selects this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusion cases, so it lands below a 5.

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

All OTP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?