Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

Work Update

work_update

Update a work item (status, assignee, priority, parent, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoWorkspace slug tag
tagsNoReplace tags
agentNoOverride agent identity
titleNoNew title
due_atNoDue datetime
githubNoowner/repo tag
work_idYesWork item UUID
priorityNourgent, high, normal, low
parent_idNoParent task UUID (reparent as subtask)
assignee_idNoAssignee UUID
work_statusNoWorkflow status
assignee_typeNoAssignee type (user)
initiative_idNoStrategic initiative UUID
playbook_slugNoNamed playbook injected on agent_run_start(work_id=). Empty string clears. Omit to leave unchanged
assignee_emailNoAssign to user by email
blocked_reasonNoWhy blocked (when status=blocked)
description_mdNoNew markdown body

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / playbook_slug
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Named playbook injected on agent_run_start(work_id=). Empty string clears. Omit to leave unchanged"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the operation. It does not disclose patch semantics (whether passing null clears a field vs. leaves it unchanged), side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. Notably, the schema itself contains behavioral hints the description omits, such as 'Empty string clears. Omit to leave unchanged' for playbook_slug and 'Replace tags' for tags.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the verb+resource is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, and the 'etc.' is a placeholder that substitutes for enumerating the tool's actual scope of supported fields.

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 17 parameters, one required field, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is inadequate. The output schema covers return values, but the description should explain when this general updater is preferred over specialized siblings, how multi-field partial updates behave, and which parameter combinations are meaningful — none of which is addressed.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description's field list ('status, assignee, priority, parent') merely restates schema properties and adds no extra meaning. It fails to clarify the most important semantic — that invoking with only work_id performs a partial update of provided fields — which is only implicitly conveyed by the schema's defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('work item') and lists representative updatable fields ('status, assignee, priority, parent'), making the general purpose evident among the many work_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with specialized mutation siblings like work_move or work_close, and the trailing 'etc.' is vague, so it stops short of full 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as work_close, work_move, work_dependency_add, or work_add_to_project. There are no exclusions, preconditions, or conditional triggers. An agent must infer routing purely from tool names and the schema.

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

All TeamShared toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.

Resources