Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

FeatureOS

by io.github.featureos
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update feature request

update_feature_request
Destructive

Update an existing feature request post.

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": {
      "feature_request_id": "<feature_request_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_feature_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reachNoReach score (used with RICE scoring).
titleNoNew title for the post.
valueNoValue score (used with value_vs_effort scoring).
effortNoEffort score (used with value_vs_effort scoring).
impactNoImpact score (used with RICE scoring).
statusNoSet to 'closed' to close the post.
state_idNoCustom status ID to set on the post.
bucket_idNoID of the board (bucket) to move the post into.
confidenceNoConfidence score (used with RICE scoring).
score_typeNoScoring model to use: 'value_vs_effort' or 'rice'.
descriptionNoNew body for the post. Accepts HTML.
effort_riceNoEffort score (used with RICE scoring).
allow_privateNoSet to True if the post belongs to a private board.
jira_issue_idNoJira issue ID to link to the post.
approval_statusNoApproval status: 'approved' or 'pending'.
feature_request_idYesThe ID of the feature request to update.
skip_subscribers_notificationNoSet to True to notify only team members (not subscribers) about a status change.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feature_requestNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond that — it does not disclose partial-update semantics (only feature_request_id is required, everything else optional), subscriber notification side effects (a dedicated parameter exists for this), or how score_type interacts with the various scoring fields. For a 17-parameter destructive mutation, this is a significant omission.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the tool's complexity. There is no structure to speak of — no sections, no caveats.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 17 parameters, destructive semantics, and notification side effects, the description is far too thin; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the partial-update contract and side effects are unaddressed. The agent is left to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so every parameter including the nuanced score_type/value/effort/effort_rice and status/state_id relationships is already documented in the schema. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate even though the description contributes no parameter meaning of its own.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update an existing feature request post' essentially restates the tool name and title with no additional specificity about scope, which fields can be changed, or how it differs from the many sibling update_* tools. An agent learns nothing it could not already infer from the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_feature_request or the more targeted assign_feature_request / add_tag_to_feature_request tools. The agent must infer entirely from naming conventions when this tool is appropriate.

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

All FeatureOS toolsInspect
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