people-context

by JinyangWang27

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

amend_candidate

Correct specified fields of a staged candidate before commit and return the revised batch without accepting it.

Instructions

Correct one staged candidate before it is committed, returning the revised batch.

The patch replaces the named fields and leaves the rest alone. Nothing is committed: confirming an amendment is not acceptance of the batch.

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": {
      "batch_id": "<batch_id>",
      "candidate_id": "<candidate_id>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "amend_candidate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`patch`	Yes
`batch_id`	Yes
`candidate_id`	Yes
`expected_batch_digest`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.0Nov 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "amend_candidateDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Addedv1.3.0Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the patch replaces only named fields, leaves the rest untouched, returns the revised batch, and commits nothing. Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description does not cover permissions, concurrency, or reversibility.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Each sentence contributes distinct information: operation, patch behavior, and non-commit semantics. No filler or redundant exposition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Core workflow and mutation semantics are covered, but with 0% schema coverage and no output schema the description does not explain valid patch keys or the optional 'expected_batch_digest'. Adequate for understanding the operation, but incomplete for confident invocation across all parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the 'patch' parameter's partial-replacement semantics but does not state which fields are valid or explain 'expected_batch_digest' at all; 'batch_id' and 'candidate_id' get no meaning beyond their names. For a four-parameter nested schema, this leaves significant gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Correct one staged candidate', and adds the lifecycle scope 'before it is committed'. The phrase 'confirming an amendment is not acceptance of the batch' distinguishes this operation from final acceptance/commit.

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 use context is clear: amend a staged candidate before commit, and do not treat the amendment as acceptance. It does not explicitly route to sibling alternatives such as commit_import or stage_candidates, so guidance is contextual rather than fully comparative.

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