petstore-api.updatePet
DestructiveIdempotent
Update an existing pet.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Output Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | No | Response from the tool |
agentdevx
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only 'existing pet', implying the target must already exist, but provides no detail about replacement semantics, error behavior, or what data is overwritten. Minimal value beyond the annotations.
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?
'Update an existing pet.' is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.
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?
Despite having annotations and an output schema, the description lacks operational context: it does not explain how this differs from updatePetWithForm, what payload or input is expected, or whether the update replaces the entire pet. The empty input schema makes correct invocation ambiguous, and the sibling ambiguity is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero properties and zero required fields, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.
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?
Clearly states the verb (Update) and resource (existing pet), which distinguishes it from create, read, and delete tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling updatePetWithForm, which also updates a pet, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updatePetWithForm, addPet, or deletePet. No conditions, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are given, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.
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.
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are clearly namespaced by service (e.g., petstore-api, github-api, jsonplaceholder), which reduces cross-service confusion. Within each service, operations are generally distinct (e.g., getPetById vs updatePet). However, some overlap exists like updatePet and updatePetWithForm, and there are multiple 'get' tools across services that could be mixed up in a large set, but descriptions help.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use camelCase (github-api.getRepo), others use underscores (acme-mailer.send_email), and some are single simple verbs (echo-server.echo, memory.store). While each service follows its own style, the server as a whole lacks a unified pattern, making the naming chaotic.
Tool Count2/5
With 38 tools, this server is heavily overloaded for a typical MCP scope. The tools span ten different services, indicating a broad aggregation rather than a focused purpose. This exceeds the recommended 3-15 tool range and even the 25+ threshold, making it feel like a collection of unrelated utilities.
Completeness2/5
The domain is unclear, but looking at each sub-service, most are incomplete. For example, github-api only offers read operations (no create/update/delete), jsonplaceholder has posts CRUD but only get for users, and open-weather lacks historical data. Memory and echo-server are trivial. The surface does not fully cover any single domain, leaving significant gaps for agent workflows.