Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ranch.Bot MCP Server

Ranch.Bot MCP Server

Official
by RanchBot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update group

update_group

Update an existing farm group's name or description, and optionally add active animals from the same farm; animal additions cannot be undone.

Instructions

Update an existing group, and optionally add animals to it. Membership is additive: animal_ids adds those animals and never removes existing members. Omit animal_ids (or pass an empty array) to leave membership unchanged. Every requested animal must be an active animal on the same farm; any unknown, archived or other-farm animal fails the whole update. A group update that adds animals cannot be undone.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe new name of the group.
farm_idNoThe ID of the farm (optional if a default is set).
group_idYesThe UUID of the group to update.
animal_idsNoAnimal UUIDs to ADD to the group (additive; existing members are preserved). Omit or pass [] to leave membership unchanged. Cannot be undone.
descriptionNoThe new description of the group.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / animal_ids
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Animal UUIDs to ADD to the group (additive; existing members are preserved). Omit or pass [] to leave membership unchanged. Cannot be undone.",
+  "items": {
+    "format": "uuid",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing three non-obvious traits: membership is strictly additive with no removals, validation is atomic (one bad animal aborts the whole update), and an update that adds animals is irreversible. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating group membership.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose then constraints, no filler. There is mild redundancy with the animal_ids schema description (additive, omit or [], cannot be undone), which costs it a point but not readability.

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?

Complete for the risky part of the operation: membership semantics, validation rules, and irreversibility are all covered, and name/description/farm_id are fully documented in the schema. It is slightly thin on what happens to name and description when they are omitted, but that is inferable and no output schema is claimed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-field semantics the schema does not state: the active/same-farm precondition on animal_ids and the all-or-nothing failure mode. It does not explain farm_id resolution beyond the schema's 'optional if a default is set'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing group') and extends it with the optional membership addition, which is the discriminating detail versus plain field updates. It never names the closely related sibling update_group_membership, so an agent must infer the split from behavioral notes rather than an explicit pointer.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: omit animal_ids or pass [] to leave membership unchanged, and every animal must be active on the same farm or the entire update fails. What it lacks is explicit routing — it never says when to prefer update_group_membership (e.g., for removals) or delete_group for other cases.

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