Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_user_custom_entry

Idempotent

Update a record in a user directives database table by specifying the table, record ID, and field-value pairs to modify.

Instructions

Update entry in user_directives.db table

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>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "update_user_custom_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tableYesTable name in user_directives.db
record_idYesRecord ID to update
dataYesField-value pairs to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate a safe, non-destructive write operation. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as error behavior if record_id is missing or the effect on other fields not specified in 'data'.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure such as usage hints or examples. Not overly verbose, but could benefit from more information without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Description is minimal for a tool with 3 required parameters, including a nested object ('data'), no output schema, and many sibling tools. Missing information about expected format of 'data', whether partial updates are allowed, and relationship to other user_custom operations.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters (table, record_id, data) with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'Update entry' aligns with the data parameter but adds no additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update entry in user_directives.db table', specifying the verb 'update' and resource 'entry in user_directives.db table'. Differentiates from siblings like 'add_user_custom_entry' and 'delete_user_custom_entry' which perform different actions.

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 'add_user_custom_entry' or 'delete_user_custom_entry'. No mention of prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it. Single sentence provides no contextual direction.

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