agentcard

set_card_preset

Update a card's preset. Pass a template name (ai_labs, weekday_meals, cli_only, daily), a saved preset name (from list_presets), a comma-separated template list, or inline JSON / { name, privileges }. Pass null or "" to clear the card's preset (Agentcard-side checks stop; any limit already on the card network stays). Edits create a new version. The response reports what was applied on Agentcard vs what was updated on the card's spend limit, and whether the change needs a new card.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`preset`	Yes	Template name (ai_labs, weekday_meals, cli_only, daily), comma-separated templates, inline JSON privileges, or { name?, privileges }. Pass null or "" with card_id to clear that card's preset.
`card_id`	Yes	The card id (from list_cards).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`preset`	No
`pushed`	No
`message`	Yes
`summary`	No
`messages`	No
`policyId`	No
`needsNewCard`	No
`agentcardOnly`	No
`policyVersion`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / card_id / description

Previous value: -"The card id. Omit to set the account default preset (or for_app's, if set)."New value: +"The card id (from list_cards)."

removedInput schema / properties / for_app

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Set a specific app's standing preset instead of the account default: \"cli\" for the CLI, a connected app's name, or its client id. Ignored when card_id is set.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "preset"
-]New value: +[
+  "card_id",
+  "preset"
+]

AddedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses several important behaviors beyond the schema: clearing a preset stops Agentcard-side checks but leaves any existing card network limit intact, edits create a new version, and the response reports what was applied on Agentcard vs the card's spend limit and whether a new card is needed. With no annotations provided, this behavioral context is valuable. It could be slightly richer (e.g., whether the operation is reversible or requires special permissions), but it covers the key side effects.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized: it opens with the core action, then enumerates input forms, then explains clearing behavior, then notes versioning and response contents. Every sentence adds information. It is slightly long but justified given the complexity of the preset parameter's polymorphic nature.

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?

The description is complete for a tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema. It explains the input forms, the clearing semantics, the versioning side effect, and what the response reports. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state the return type or error conditions, but the output schema presumably covers the response structure, and the description covers the behavioral nuances.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the semantics of the preset parameter in more depth: the accepted forms (template name, saved preset name, comma-separated list, inline JSON) and the clearing behavior with null or empty string. This goes beyond the schema's oneOf definition, though the schema already covers the structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a card's preset.' It then enumerates the accepted input forms (template name, saved preset name, comma-separated list, inline JSON) and the clearing behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card_preset, list_presets, save_preset, and delete_preset. The verb 'update' plus the resource 'card's preset' is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what inputs can be passed and how to clear a preset, which implies when to use it. It references list_presets as the source for saved preset names, giving a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like save_preset or delete_preset, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All agentcard 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?