Skip to main content
Glama
awdr74100

figwright

by awdr74100
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

set_reactions

Overwrite a node's prototype reactions with new trigger-action pairs. Use to round-trip get_reactions output; returns { ok, nodeId }.

Instructions

Replace all of a node's prototype reactions — this overwrites existing reactions rather than appending. Each reaction pairs a trigger (e.g. { type: 'ON_CLICK' }) with an actions array (e.g. { type: 'NODE', destinationId, navigation, transition }). Best used to round-trip get_reactions output; to clear all reactions instead use remove_reactions. Returns { ok, nodeId }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeIdYesNode to set reactions on
reactionsYesReactions to apply (replaces existing)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / reactions / items / properties / actions / items / properties / destinationId / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / reactions / items / properties / actions / items / properties / destinationId / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  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. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the key behavioral trait the annotations do not: the operation overwrites rather than appends, which is the single most important thing to know before calling. It also documents the return shape ({ ok, nodeId }) with no output schema present. Slight tension with destructiveHint=false given full replacement of existing data, but the description is transparent about the effect.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the overwrite semantics, then usage routing, then payload shape, then return value. Four dense sentences with no filler.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers overwrite semantics, the alternative tool, payload examples, and the return value. 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds concrete payload examples ({ type: 'ON_CLICK' } for trigger; { type: 'NODE', destinationId, navigation, transition } for actions) that clarify the otherwise loosely-typed nested objects. This meaningfully exceeds what the schema conveys.

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 ('Replace all of a node's prototype reactions') and immediately distinguishes the scope of the write. An agent can tell this apart from get_reactions and remove_reactions without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the intended workflow ('Best used to round-trip get_reactions output') and names the alternative for a different intent ('to clear all reactions instead use remove_reactions'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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