Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_file

Idempotent

Update file metadata by specifying file ID and optionally changing name, path, or language.

Instructions

Update file metadata

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": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesFile ID to update
nameNoNew file name (NULL = don't update)
pathNoNew file path (NULL = don't update)
languageNoLanguage (NULL = don't update)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the update is partial or full, whether it requires file ownership, or what happens on failure. It fails to add 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (three words), which is both a strength and a weakness. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, but it lacks substantive detail that could help the agent understand the tool's behavior without looking at other fields.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome (e.g., returns updated metadata, success status), nor does it summarize the key semantic rules (e.g., only non-null fields are updated). The agent is left to rely solely on the schema for understanding.

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 having a description. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update file metadata' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (file metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_file or finalize_file, but could be more specific about which metadata fields are affected (though the schema lists them).

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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