WCGW Safety Suite - Functional Safety Requirements and Traceability MCP Server

update_concept

Update a concept's metadata, including its PSPP dimension and OPB term.

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": {
      "concept_id": "<concept_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_concept"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	No	New concept key.
`type`	No	Concept type.
`title`	No	New title.
`archived`	No	Whether the concept is archived.
`opb_term`	No	OPB IRI, or null to clear.
`standards`	No	Replace applicable standards.
`concept_id`	Yes	Concept ID.
`work_item_id`	No	Work item ID, or null to unassign.
`pspp_dimension`	No	PSPP dimension, or null to clear.
`sotif_category`	No	SOTIF category, or null to clear.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations establish a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description never says whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether a revision is recorded or archived concepts remain editable, or whether it requires ownership — all material for a 10-parameter mutation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering semantics, the description is too thin: it omits partial-update behavior, revision/audit effects, and permission requirements. An agent could call it correctly only by reading the schema closely and guessing at the update semantics.

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 already carries its own documentation, which sets the baseline at 3. The description names only psp_dimension and opb_term and adds no semantics (such as how 'standards' replacement behaves or what null means across fields) beyond what the schema states.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a concept's metadata') and names two concrete updatable fields (PSPP dimension and OPB term). It does not distinguish this tool from the nearby sibling submit_concept_revision, which an agent could plausibly confuse with an update operation.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of create_concept, submit_concept_revision, or add_concept_to_work_item, nor any statement of prerequisites such as required permissions or project membership. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'Update'.

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

All WCGW Safety Suite - Functional Safety Requirements and Traceability MCP Server tools Inspect

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

Need Help?