Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP CU Chat Server

MCP CU Chat Server

by changjian-wang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

update_field_description

Updates and saves a field description in the Content Understanding schema after editing in the UI panel.

Instructions

Persist an edited CU field description (called by the UI panel).

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": {
      "fieldName": "<fieldName>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "update_field_description"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldNameYes
descriptionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a write/persist operation but fails to describe authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on conflict or error. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified and lacks crucial details, making the conciseness a trade-off rather than a strength.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'persisting' entails, whether the operation is idempotent, or what response to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters 'fieldName' and 'description'. It does not explain what field names are valid or what the description format should be.

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?

The description uses the verb 'Persist' and identifies the resource as 'CU field description', making the action clear. It also notes it is called by the UI panel, distinguishing it from the sibling 'render_cu_schema' which likely deals with rendering or reloading 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?

The description implies that this tool is used when the UI panel triggers an edit persist action, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.

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