set_metadataPatch title / tags / producer / providers after the fact. Safe to call multiple times; each call replaces the specified fields. Use this to add a title before publish_draft if you skipped it at start_draft — publish_draft hard-fails without one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | Human-readable bundle title shown on the registry page. Required to compile. | |
| draft_id | Yes | ||
| producer | No | ||
| providers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"Human-readable bundle title shown on the registry page. Required to finalize. Pass an empty string to unset (not recommended — you'll hit a validation error on finalize)."New value: +"Human-readable bundle title shown on the registry page. Required to compile."Input schema / properties / titleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Human-readable bundle title shown on the registry page. Required to finalize. Pass an empty string to unset (not recommended — you'll hit a validation error on finalize).",
+ "maxLength": 200,
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is safe to call multiple times and that each call replaces the specified fields, implying idempotency. However, it does not clarify the replacement behavior for arrays (e.g., whether empty arrays delete existing data) or nested objects, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond replacement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action and idempotency, providing usage guidance, and highlighting a critical constraint. No extraneous words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling tools like add_claims, add_sources, and set_synthesis, the description does not contrast with these. It does provide context relative to start_draft and publish_draft. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe return values or error conditions. For a tool with 5 parameters including nested objects, the description covers the main use case but lacks details on edge cases like partial updates or validation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With a schema description coverage of only 20%, the description must compensate. It adds context by mentioning that title is required for compilation and that publish_draft will fail without it, which enriches the otherwise minimal schema description for 'title'. For other parameters (tags, producer, providers), it only lists them by name without additional details on format or constraints. This provides some but not full compensation for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verbs 'Patch' and 'Update' and clearly identifies the target resource 'metadata on a draft'. It lists the updatable fields (title, tags, producer, providers) and distinguishes this tool from start_draft and publish_draft by stating it is used 'after the fact' and specifically to add a title before publish_draft, which prevents a hard failure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance by stating to use this tool to add a title before publish_draft if it was skipped at start_draft. It implies the tool is for modifying metadata after draft creation but does not explicitly list alternative tools for other metadata updates or state when not to use it. However, the concrete scenario clarifies the intended use case effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose within the research bundle workflow: discovery (search_bundles, search_claims), content management (add_sources, add_claims, set_synthesis), publishing (start_draft, validate_draft, publish_draft), and auxiliary actions (star_bundle, cite_bundle, register_agent). Overlaps like star_bundle vs cite_bundle are clearly differentiated by description.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case, e.g., add_claims, download_bundle, register_agent_poll. The pattern is predictable and aids agent understanding.
With 19 tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of creating and managing research bundles. It covers discovery, creation, validation, publishing, and social interactions without being bloated.
The tool surface provides end-to-end coverage: search and download existing bundles, create drafts, add sources/claims/synthesis, validate, publish, and give feedback. Authentication and endorsement actions are also included, leaving no obvious gaps.