Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
superpos-mcp

superpos-mcp

Official
by Superpos-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

superpos_update_track

Update a track's name, description, or spec document by supplying only the fields to change. State transitions are handled separately.

Instructions

Update a track's name, description, or spec document (only the fields provided). Use superpos_transition_track to change state.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "superpos_update_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
slugYes
specNo
hive_idNo
descriptionNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('only the fields provided'), which is useful. However, it does not mention required permissions, idempotency, or whether the tool returns the updated track (though output schema exists).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose and fields, the second provides a cross-reference to an alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description partially covers the tool's behavior and parameters but leaves gaps. The required slug parameter is not explained, and hive_id is unmentioned. However, the output schema may document the return value, reducing the need for explanation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions three parameters (name, description, spec) but omits slug (required) and hive_id. This adds some meaning but is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

The description clearly states the tool updates a track's name, description, or spec document. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool superpos_transition_track by noting that state changes should use that tool instead.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use superpos_transition_track to change state.' This provides clear context, though it does not specify any exclusions 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