Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Little Green Light MCP Server

Little Green Light MCP Server

by WillHeadlee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

update_appeal

Idempotent

Update an appeal's details in your Little Green Light CRM by providing its ID and optionally a new name.

Instructions

Update appeal details

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": "update_appeal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (e.g., idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only). It does not describe what happens if the appeal does not exist or the scope of the update (partial vs full replacement).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely brief (three words), which is concise but at the cost of essential details. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it minimally adequate.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has 2 parameters (one required) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the update effect, required fields, optional fields, or any constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not. It fails to clarify that 'id' is required and 'name' is the only updatable field, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the action (update) and resource (appeal), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, get, or delete. However, it lacks specifics on which details can be updated, such as the 'name' field from the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, such as whether it should be used only to change the name or if other properties exist.

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