Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AbleSign MCP

AbleSign MCP

by MartinLoeper
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_screen_group

Apply partial updates to a screen group's configuration using its ID and a changes object.

Instructions

Partially update a screen group.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "update_screen_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changesYes
group_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Partially update a screen group.' It does not disclose what fields can be updated, required permissions, error behaviors (e.g., if group_id not found), or whether changes are reversible. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned.

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 description is extremely concise—one sentence—but at the cost of omitting necessary information. While it is not verbose, it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters for an effective agent usage.

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?

Given the complexity (2 params, one a generic object) and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how the 'changes' object should be structured, return format (despite output schema existing), or side effects. A mutation tool requires more contextual detail.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description adds no meaning for the two parameters. The 'changes' object is left completely undocumented; the agent has no clue what keys or values are allowed. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema explanations.

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 clearly states the action (update) and resource (screen group), and includes 'partially' to indicate it's a partial update, distinguishing it from a full replacement. However, it does not differentiate from other update tools (e.g., update_workspace) beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., creating a new screen group, deleting, or using other update tools). The description implicitly ties usage to screen groups but offers no context or prerequisites.

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