Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_project_entry

Idempotent

Update a record in a specified table by ID with new field values, enabling persistent database state management for functional programming projects.

Instructions

Update existing entry

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": {
      "table": "<table>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "update_project_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesTable name
idYesRecord ID
dataYesField-value pairs to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is clear. Description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'update' (e.g., partial vs full update, response). No contradictions, but minimal added value.

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?

Extremely concise (3 words) but lacks structure. No details like parameter usage or return values. Could be expanded without sacrificing brevity.

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?

With 3 required params, no output schema, and nested objects, description is too brief. Does not explain valid tables, effect on existing fields, or what 'entry' means. Incomplete for a generic update tool.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

Description 'Update existing entry' includes verb+resource but is generic. Does not distinguish between many sibling update tools for specific entities (e.g., update_file, update_flow). The name and schema indicate it updates a project entry in a given table, but description lacks that specificity.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling update tools, agent needs context about which table or entry type this applies to. No when-not or exclusion advice provided.

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