@vibemap.ai/mcp-server

vibemap_update_user_story

Idempotent

Update fields or status of an existing user story in VibeMap by providing the story ID.

Instructions

Update an existing user story's fields or status in VibeMap.

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": {
      "storyId": "<storyId>"
    },
    "name": "vibemap_update_user_story"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`soThat`	No
`status`	No
`iWantTo`	No
`storyId`	Yes
`priority`	No
`userRole`	No
`description`	No
`estimatedEffort`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.5.2Jul 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the annotations. It fails to mention that the update is partial (only provided fields change), authorization needs, or potential side effects. Annotations already mark it as idempotent and non-destructive, but no additional context is added.

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 a single, concise sentence without waste. However, it lacks structured enumeration of parameters or examples, which would improve clarity.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error handling, or practical use context, making it incomplete for effective tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 9 parameters. Terms like 'soThat', 'iWantTo', and 'userRole' remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing user story's fields or status in VibeMap', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_user_story or list_user_stories.

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?

The description lacks any guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., story must exist), or mentions of alternative tools for similar operations. Only a generic statement is provided.

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

Deploy Server