Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_type

Idempotent

Updates a type record's metadata, such as name, description, file association, or definition, by providing the type ID and optional fields to modify.

Instructions

Update type 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": {
      "type_id": "<type_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
type_idYesType ID to update
nameNoNew name (NULL = don't update)
file_idNoNew file_id (NULL = don't update)
definition_jsonNoNew definition (NULL = don't update)
descriptionNoNew description (NULL = don't update)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects, validation of definition_json, or what happens if the type_id does not exist.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema, so the description should hint at the return value (e.g., success confirmation or updated type object). Lacks context on partial update behavior and error handling.

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 has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'New name (NULL = don't update)'). The tool description adds no further meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Describes the action as 'Update type metadata', which is a verb+resource, but 'type' and 'metadata' are vague and do not differentiate from other update tools like update_file or update_function. It could be more specific about what kind of type (e.g., custom types).

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 versus alternatives such as update_file or update_module. Does not specify prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.

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