Skip to main content
Glama
azimov777

Casefile

by azimov777
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_participant

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a participant's description in a case file. Name and kind remain unchanged; only a main token can perform the edit, and the old description is overwritten.

Instructions

Changes a participant's description. Only a main token edits participants. Name and kind never change: the name signs entries already filed. The previous description is not kept.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesParticipant name, case-insensitive. An unknown name is refused with `participant_not_found`
descriptionYesWho the participant is: all that a reader of a case learns about the author of an entry

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changedv0.5.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"Кто это. Всё, что читающий дело узнает об авторе записи"New value: +"Who the participant is: all that a reader of a case learns about the author of an entry"
    • removedInput schema / properties / description / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  "Релизный бот, ведёт задачи выкладки"
-]
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Имя участника из реестра. Регистр не важен"New value: +"Participant name, case-insensitive. An unknown name is refused with `participant_not_found`"
    • removedInput schema / properties / name / examples
      Removed value: -[
-  "release_bot"
-]
    • removedOutput schema / $defs
      Removed value: -{
-  "ParticipantKind": {
-    "description": "Род участника.\n\nРолей и прав за родом не стоит: любую запись и любой переход может сделать участник\nлюбого рода (`CONCEPT.md`, 3.1). Род нужен, чтобы читающий дело понимал, кто\nговорит, и чтобы интерфейс человека отличал людей от агентов в списке адресатов.",
-    "enum": [
-      "human",
-      "agent"
-    ],
-    "title": "ParticipantKind",
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-}
    • changedOutput schema / description
      Previous value: -"Участник реестра: кому можно адресовать вопрос и что о нём известно."New value: +"Participant name in its stored, lower-case form; the registry is returned by\n`list_participants`."
    • removedOutput schema / properties / description
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Description",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedOutput schema / properties / kind
      Removed value: -{
-  "$ref": "#/$defs/ParticipantKind"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "kind",
-  "name",
-  "description"
-]New value: +[
+  "name"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / title
      Previous value: -"ParticipantView"New value: +"ParticipantNameView"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: only a main token can edit, name/kind are immutable because the name signs entries already filed, and the previous description is not kept. This clarifies and extends the destructiveHint annotation with specific consequences.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with the primary action, then each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of information: permission, immutability, and destructiveness. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Complete for a simple two-parameter update tool. The description covers the permission requirement, immutability of name/kind, and the destructive nature of overwriting. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. No critical information 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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond the schema, only referencing the description field and the immutability of name/kind, which does not substantially enhance parameter understanding.

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 specific verb (changes) and resource (participant's description), and distinguishes itself by explicitly saying name and kind never change. This differentiates it from any potential create/update participant tools and clarifies its scope.

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?

Implies usage for updating participant descriptions and gives a clear prerequisite (only a `main` token can edit). It also provides an exclusion (name and kind never change), which helps agents understand what not to attempt. Lacks explicit naming of alternative tools, but no direct sibling for this action exists in the list.

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