Skip to main content
Glama

esyURL

Update group

update_group
Idempotent

Rename a group or change its description or color. Membership doesn't change here.

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": {
      "groupId": "<groupId>"
    },
    "name": "update_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoGroup name, up to 100 chars
colorNoHex colour for UIs, e.g. #3366ff
groupIdYesThe group id (groupId), as returned by create_group or list_groups
descriptionNoUp to 500 chars

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations supply only idempotentHint, so the description carries the rest. It usefully discloses the mutation boundary (membership untouched), but says nothing about whether this is a partial update, what happens to fields left unspecified, permission requirements, or whether the color format is validated.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the positive scope is front-loaded ahead of the exclusion. Nothing restates the title or wastes tokens.

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?

There is no output schema and only a thin idempotentHint annotation, so the description is the main source of behavioral context for a mutation with three optional fields. It covers scope but omits partial-update semantics and permissions, leaving an agent to guess at edge-case behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with formats and limits (100/500 char caps, hex example). The description only echoes the three updatable fields and adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (rename/change) and resource (group), and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, color). The clause 'Membership doesn't change here' explicitly separates it from membership-mutating siblings like add_links_to_group and remove_link_from_group.

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?

The scope statement acts as an implicit when-to-use and a when-not (not for membership edits), which is meaningful guidance. However, it never names the alternative tool an agent should use for membership changes, so routing is left partly to inference.

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.