Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_completion_path

Idempotent

Update the name, status, or description of a completion path to track progress in functional programming projects.

Instructions

Update completion path

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_completion_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCompletion path ID
nameNoNew name (NULL = don't update)
statusNo'pending', 'in_progress', 'completed' (NULL = don't update)
descriptionNoNew description (NULL = don't update)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether updates are partial or full replacement, or any side effects). Thus it adds no value beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short (four words), which might seem concise, but it is under-specified and fails to convey essential usage details. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 4 parameters, multiple siblings, and no output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how it interacts with other completion path tools. The annotations provide some safety context, but the description fails to fill the gaps.

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 each parameter described with its type and role (e.g., 'New name (NULL = don't update)'). The description does not add any extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Update completion path' is a minimal statement of action and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from many other update tools among siblings (e.g., update_task, update_milestone). It lacks specificity on what aspects of the completion path can be updated, bordering on a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 like add_completion_path or other update tools. There are no context signals, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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