Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Revel Digital MCP Server

Revel Digital MCP Server

Official
by RevelDigital
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

patchmedia

Update specific properties of a media item using JSON Patch syntax for partial modifications.

Instructions

Patch a media item. Patch allows partial updates by targeting specific properties of the schedule. Uses the JSON Patch syntax (http://jsonpatch.com)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "patchmedia"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMedia Id
requestBodyNoPatch update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.20

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the use of JSON Patch syntax, which adds some context, but it does not describe side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or permissions needed. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences are used, with the valuable addition of the JSON Patch link. However, the first sentence is slightly ambiguous due to the 'schedule' reference. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover response format, prerequisites, and error handling. It explains the input format (JSON Patch) but lacks details on what the tool returns or when it is valid to use. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds the JSON Patch format context for the requestBody parameter, but does not provide additional meaning for the id parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Patch a media item' which identifies the resource, but then says 'targeting specific properties of the schedule', introducing confusion about the target resource. This inconsistency detracts from clarity, though the verb and resource are generally indicated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies that the tool is for partial updates ('Patch allows partial updates'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus full update (putmedia) or other alternative tools. No exclusions or context are provided.

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