Create or update a JSON record in a collection. Pass data as an object. Optional id to upsert a specific record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Optional record id (create or replace). | |
| data | Yes | JSON object to store. | |
| collection | Yes | Collection name. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation and explains the role of the optional id ('upsert a specific record'). However, it does not clarify whether updates are full replacements or partial merges (though the schema's id description says 'create or replace'), nor does it mention permissions, error handling, or return values. This is adequate but not rich.
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 with no filler. It leads with the primary purpose and immediately provides the key usage details. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic operation and the id behavior. It does not explain return values, error cases, or whether the collection must exist, but it is minimally sufficient for the agent to understand core functionality. A more complete description would address these gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value: it repeats that data is an object and explains the id's purpose, but these are already in the schema. It does not introduce additional meaning for parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('Create or update') and the resource ('a JSON record in a collection'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage collections (create_collection, delete_collection) or delete records (delete_record). The verb is specific and the scope is well-defined.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to create or update a JSON record. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the scenario is obvious. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.
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 targets a distinct resource and action: subdomain availability, site content, collections, records, and API keys. There is no meaningful overlap between tools like upload_site and create_collection, or delete_record and upsert_record. Even similar operations (reserve vs. release, create vs. delete) are clearly scoped.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, such as check_subdomain_availability, clear_site, and rotate_site_api_key. Verb forms are uniform and predictable, making it easy to guess related operations. No mixed conventions or vague names.
With 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a demo platform covering subdomain management, site deployment, document storage, and API key handling. Each tool has a clear purpose, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers nearly all essential workflows: subdomain lifecycle (reserve, check, release), site deployment (upload, clear), collection/record CRUD (create, delete, list, upsert), and API key management (get, rotate). Minor gaps exist, such as no update_collection or get_site details, but these are not critical for core usage. Overall, the surface is functionally complete for the stated purpose.
