Skip to main content
Glama

Better Design

by io.github.marvkr
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Save Team Rules

set-team-rules
DestructiveIdempotent

Saves the Markdown rules the user approved as their Better Design team's rules, or, given a client project, one piece of it: its guidelines, a use, never or pairing rule for one part, a brand-wide ban, or a spec on a screen. It refuses to replace different saved text unless the user agreed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoWith projectId: "guidelines", "use", "never", "pairing" or "spec". A screen alone means spec; nothing at all means guidelines; a part needs its kind.
partNoWith projectId: the part or value the rule or spec is about, such as "Button" or "--primary".
screenNoWith projectId: the screen a spec belongs to, such as "sign-up".
markdownYesThe whole rules document in Markdown, in the outline get-team-rules gives, or one project piece. Up to 32 KB for team rules or project guidelines, 4 KB for a part rule or spec.
projectIdNoSave into this client project instead of the account's team rules. The project must belong to this account.
personApprovedYesTrue only after the person read this exact draft and said to save it.
replaceExistingNoTrue only after the person agreed to replace the rules already saved.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / pattern
      Previous value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"New value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
  2. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / kind
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "With projectId: \"guidelines\", \"use\", \"never\", \"pairing\" or \"spec\". A screen alone means spec; nothing at all means guidelines; a part needs its kind.",
+  "enum": [
+    "guidelines",
+    "use",
+    "never",
+    "pairing",
+    "spec"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / markdown / description
      Previous value: -"The whole rules document in Markdown, in the outline get-team-rules gives. Up to 32 KB."New value: +"The whole rules document in Markdown, in the outline get-team-rules gives, or one project piece. Up to 32 KB for team rules or project guidelines, 4 KB for a part rule or spec."
    • addedInput schema / properties / part
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "With projectId: the part or value the rule or spec is about, such as \"Button\" or \"--primary\".",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / projectId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Save into this client project instead of the account's team rules. The project must belong to this account.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / screen
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "With projectId: the screen a spec belongs to, such as \"sign-up\".",
+  "maxLength": 120,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it will refuse to overwrite differing saved text unless the user agreed, and saving is gated on the person having read and approved the exact draft.

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?

Only two sentences and the main verb leads, which is good. However, the long middle clause ('its guidelines, a use, never or pairing rule for one part, a brand-wide ban, or a spec on a screen') is densely stacked and awkward enough to slow parsing rather than inform.

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?

With no output schema and seven parameters, a destructive write tool needs its approval gating and refusal semantics stated, and both are present. Minor gaps remain (what a successful save returns, the intended relationship to propose-team-rule), but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents kind, part, screen, markdown, projectId, personApproved and replaceExisting in detail. The description restates the kind selection logic (screen alone means spec, nothing means guidelines) but adds no syntax or edge-case detail the schema lacks, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Names a specific verb (saves) and resource (Markdown rules as the team's rules, or one project piece), and enumerates the granular kinds it can write (guidelines, use, never, pairing, spec). An agent can tell this is the write counterpart to the read-only get-team-rules, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implies when each mode applies (no projectId = team rules, projectId = one piece, with kind distinguishing), and states the refusal condition for replacement. It never names an alternative such as propose-team-rule or explains when to use that draft-then-save loop, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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

All Better Design toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources