Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
huly-mcp-selfhost

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_message

Edit an existing Huly message or thread reply by providing the workspace, message ID, and new content.

Instructions

Edit a message or thread reply

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "update_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYes
messageIdYesMessage id (list_messages, list_comments, list_thread)
workspaceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description should carry the rest of the behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the new message body replaces the existing text entirely, whether permissions or ownership are required, or whether edit history is preserved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The seven-word description is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is good. However, it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool with three required parameters, so its brevity comes at the cost of useful detail.

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?

For a mutation tool with minimal annotations, no output schema, and a required message parameter of unclear semantics, the definition is under-specified. An agent could call it but would not know the replacement behavior or permission requirements.

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 only 33%: only messageId is documented, while workspace and message have no schema descriptions. The description adds no meaning to any of the three parameters, leaving the agent to guess whether message is a full replacement body or a patch.

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?

The description gives a clear verb-plus-resource ("Edit a message or thread reply") that an agent can immediately map to an action. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent mutation tools such as update_comment, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over siblings like update_comment or reply_to_message. The phrase "or thread reply" hints at scope but stops short of stating any selection condition.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools