Skip to main content
Glama
awdr74100

figwright

by awdr74100
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

edit_component_property

Change an existing component property: rename it, update default value, or set INSTANCE_SWAP preferred values. Get property IDs from get_component_api; reuse returned ID after rename.

Instructions

Change an existing component property: rename it, change its defaultValue, or (INSTANCE_SWAP only) change its preferredValues. Supply at least one. Renaming returns a new propertyId (the #id suffix is kept but the name part changes), so use the returned propertyId for later calls; existing bindings keep working. Get current property ids from get_component_api. Returns { ok, componentId, propertyId, name }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew property name
propertyIdYesProperty id to edit (name#id, from get_component_api / add)
componentIdYesComponent or component-set id that owns the property
defaultValueNoNew default (boolean / string / component key, matching the property type)
preferredValuesNoINSTANCE_SWAP only: replacement swap-menu components/sets

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / defaultValue / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / defaultValue / type
      Added value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "string"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.3
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses that renaming returns a new propertyId, that the #id suffix is preserved, that existing bindings keep working, and even the return shape. It does not discuss whether the mutation is reversible or what happens on invalid property types.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the three mutable fields, followed by the at-least-one rule, the id-source pointer, and the return-value note. Every sentence is useful, though the prose is dense and the parenthetical about the #id suffix adds mild length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with full annotation coverage and a fully-described schema, the description supplies everything remaining: which fields can change, the minimum-input rule, where to obtain ids, the post-rename id behavior, and the return shape despite no output schema. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the INSTANCE_SWAP-only note on preferredValues and the type-matching note on defaultValue. The description largely restates these constraints rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Change an existing component property') and enumerates the exact mutations allowed: rename, defaultValue, or INSTANCE_SWAP preferredValues. The sibling set contains add_component_property, delete_component_property, and bind_component_property, and this definition is clearly scoped as the edit path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Supply at least one' of the mutable fields) and routes the agent to get_component_api for current property ids. It does not explicitly say when to prefer add_component_property/delete_component_property instead, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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