Skip to main content
Glama

Update map properties

update_map

Shallow-merge map property fields such as displayName, note, bgm, or encounterList into a map's JSON without altering data or events. Use event tools for events and paint_tiles for tiles.

Instructions

Shallow-merge fields into a map's JSON (e.g. displayName, note, bgm, encounterList). Refuses to touch 'data' or 'events' — use the event tools for events and paint_tiles for tiles. To switch tilesets prefer set_map_tileset.

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": {
      "mapId": "<mapId>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "update_map"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesMap property fields to set
mapIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose important behavior: shallow merge semantics, refused fields ('data' and 'events'), and preferred alternatives. It does not fully cover mutation persistence, error behavior, or return values, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds routing or scope information. There is no filler.

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?

For a mutating update tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers the essential scope, examples, exclusions, and sibling alternatives well. It falls short of complete because it does not address persistence requirements, response shape, or error conditions.

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 50%, but the description adds useful meaning for the nested 'data' parameter by giving example fields such as displayName, note, bgm, and encounterList, plus restrictions on what it will not modify. The required mapId parameter is self-evident, though the use of 'data' for both the input parameter and a forbidden map JSON field could be clearer.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: shallow-merging fields into a map's JSON, with concrete examples. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from event tools, paint_tiles, and set_map_tileset.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states when not to use this tool by naming the fields it refuses to touch and routing events to the event tools, tiles to paint_tiles, and tileset switching to set_map_tileset. These are explicit alternatives rather than implied usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.