Pathrule

Pathrule Update Rule

pathrule_update_rule

Destructive

Update a rule's fields and/or path. Optimistic concurrency via expected_version_id. Cloud-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`patch`	Yes	Fields to change. Omitted fields are left as they are, so send only what actually differs.
`rule_id`	Yes	Rule UUID returned by pathrule_get_context, pathrule_goto, or pathrule_read_rule.
`move_to_path`	No	Optional workspace-relative destination path such as /packages/app. Missing nodes are created when allowed by the backend.
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace UUID from pathrule_list_workspaces.
`allow_duplicate`	No	Set true only when intentionally allowing another rule with the same name.
`expected_version_id`	No	Optional optimistic-concurrency token from the existing record. Pass it when available to avoid overwriting a newer edit.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true when the call succeeded. false when it did not, in which case `error` carries the reason and the success fields are absent.
`data`	No	Updated rule: id, version_id, and the name it now carries.
`error`	No	Present only when ok is false.
`human_message`	No	One-line summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim.
`related_to_check`	No	Up to 3 items that may need the same change (companions, links, near duplicates), from a cached knowledge map.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / related_to_check

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Up to 3 items that may need the same change (companions, links, near duplicates), from a cached knowledge map.",
+  "items": {},
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / patch / description

Added value: +"Fields to change. Omitted fields are left as they are, so send only what actually differs."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Updated rule: id, version_id, and the name it now carries."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when ok is false.",
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "description": "Stable machine-readable failure code, for example insufficient_scope, workspace_id_required, rate_limited, not_found, or upstream_error. Branch on this, not on message text.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "detail": {
+          "description": "Optional structured context for the failure, for example { missing_scopes: [...] } on insufficient_scope."
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "description": "Human-readable explanation of the failure.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "human_message": {
+      "description": "One-line summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "true when the call succeeded. false when it did not, in which case `error` carries the reason and the success fields are absent.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds two things annotations cannot convey: the cloud-only constraint and the optimistic-concurrency behavior around expected_version_id. It still doesn't say what a missing expected_version_id means in practice, but this is materially useful beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (mutation scope, concurrency mechanism, environment constraint) with zero filler.

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 an output schema present and full in-schema parameter descriptions, the description only needs to carry behavioral context, and it does for concurrency and deployment scope. The missing piece is routing versus write_rule, which is the one thing an agent still has to guess.

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%, with the nested patch object and every parameter already documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only names expected_version_id and 'fields and/or path', adding no semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a rule's fields and/or path'), so the mutation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling pathrule_write_rule, which an agent must choose between for the same resource.

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?

'Optimistic concurrency via expected_version_id' and 'Cloud-only' imply when this tool is applicable and when it isn't (non-cloud backends), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer update over write_rule or create. Usage is only inferable.

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

All Pathrule tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?