Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIMFP

AIMFP

by aryanduntley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_user_setting

Idempotent

Update an existing user setting in the AIMFP project. Specify the setting key and new value to modify the configuration.

Instructions

Update existing project-wide user setting in user_settings 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": {
      "setting_key": "<setting_key>"
    },
    "name": "update_user_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
setting_keyYesSetting key to update (must exist)
setting_valueNoNew setting value
descriptionNoNew description (optional)
scopeNoNew scope (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.37.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and non-destructive nature. Description adds little beyond stating it's an update. No disclosure of side effects, error behavior, or permissions. Since annotations carry the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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, no redundant information. Could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, but it is appropriately concise.

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

Completeness3/5

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

No output schema and no description of return values or error states. For a simple update tool with good annotations, it covers basics but lacks completeness on behavioral outcomes.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context for the parameters, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Description states verb 'Update' and resource 'existing project-wide user setting in user_settings table', making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_setting (read) and add_user_setting (create), but could be more specific about what constitutes a user setting.

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 versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., setting must exist), or when not to use. Does not mention that add_user_setting should be used for new settings or that get_user_setting is for reading.

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