Skip to main content
Glama
azimov777

Casefile

by azimov777
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Update participant

update_participant
DestructiveIdempotent

Change a participant's description to reflect who they are in a case file. Name and kind stay fixed; previous description is replaced.

Instructions

Changes a participant's description. 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds real value by specifying the exact destruction semantics — the prior description is overwritten and not retained — and by clarifying that name is immutable because it 'signs entries already filed'. That explains the destructive/idempotent profile in domain terms.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action comes first, then the immutability constraint, then the overwrite caveat. Every sentence carries information.

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?

With a full output schema, complete annotations, and 100%-documented parameters, the description only needed to supply the mutation semantics and immutability rules it does supply. Nothing required to call 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal semantics — why name can't change and that description is replaced wholesale — without adding format, length, or validation detail beyond the 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Changes a participant's description') and immediately delineates what is NOT changed ('Name and kind never change'), which cleanly separates it from register_participant, list_participants, and the task/entry tools. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: edit an existing participant's description, and do not attempt to rename. No sibling or alternative is named, and no precondition (e.g., participant must already exist via register_participant) is spelled out, though the schema's participant_not_found note partially covers that.

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