typst_update_memberChange an existing Typst project member's access level to read, review, or write using the user ID retrieved from the project member list.
Change an existing member's access. user_id comes from typst_get_project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| access | Yes | 'read' = view only, 'review' = view and comment, 'write' = edit | |
| user_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Project ID from typst_list_projects, e.g. 'pAbC123dEf456gHi789jKl' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the behavioral bar is lowered. The description adds little beyond that: it does not state required permissions, what happens if the user is not yet a member, or whether the change notifies anyone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one piece of sourcing context. Nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a three-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin. A caller still lacks information about preconditions (must the user already be a member?) and permission requirements for editing member access.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%: access and project_id already have good inline descriptions, but user_id is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by stating user_id comes from typst_get_project, resolving the one blind spot with actionable guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('member's access'), clearly separating it from typst_invite_member and typst_remove_member in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the pointer that user_id comes from typst_get_project, which tells the agent where to source the identifier. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over invite_member/remove_member, nor whether the target user must already be a member.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.