Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LibreDesk MCP

LibreDesk MCP

by Passe12345
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_shared_view

Replace an existing shared view's name, filters, visibility, and team assignment in one update; because fields are overwritten, read the current view first and resend every value.

Instructions

Update Shared View Replaces a shared view: name, filters, visibility and team_id are all overwritten with the body, nothing is merged, so read the view first (get_shared_view) and resend every field. A personal view answers 404. Requires the shared_views:manage permission. PUT /api/v1/shared-views/{id} Tags: Views

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesView ID (path parameter)
nameYes(body)
filtersYes(body) Either a group (logic + rules, nested one level at most) or a condition (model, field, operator, value). Allowed model.field pairs: conversations.status_id, priority_id, assigned_team_id, assigned_user_id, inbox_id, last_message_at, last_interaction_at, last_interaction_sender, created_at, waiting_since, next_sla_deadline_at, snoozed_until, sla_policy_id, tags; conversation_statuses.id, name; users.email, external_user_id; inboxes.channel. There is no subject or content field: a view cannot filter on text
team_idNo(body) Required when visibility is team
visibilityYes(body) all: every agent. team: the members of team_id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: replace-not-merge semantics, a 404 for personal views, the `shared_views:manage` permission, and the concrete endpoint. It stops short of describing what a successful response contains or any side effects on other views, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 replacement warning is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the right priority. The repeated title line, the raw 'PUT /api/v1/...' and 'Tags: Views' boilerplate add little, though they cost only a few tokens.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a nested, five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive-replacement risk, prerequisites, permissions, and one error path. The only real gap is the absence of any statement about the return value.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the nested filters schema is richly documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds the important implication that omitted optional fields (notably team_id) are wiped rather than preserved, but gives no field-level guidance beyond the schema.

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?

Names the resource and operation precisely and immediately qualifies it as a full replacement ('name, filters, visibility and team_id are all overwritten with the body, nothing is merged'), which separates it from create_shared_view and the read-only get_shared_view siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ('read the view first (`get_shared_view`) and resend every field'), names the required permission, and calls out the failure case for personal views. An agent knows both how to prepare and when the call will fail.

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