Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

tempo-api-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tempo_update_team

Destructive

Update an existing Tempo team by ID, changing only the fields you supply while preserving all other current values. Preview the merged result and confirm before the change is applied.

Instructions

Update an existing Tempo team by id. Supply only the fields to change. Fields you omit keep their current values: the tool reads the current resource and merges your fields over it (Tempo's PUT replaces the whole resource, so an update built from only the changed fields would wipe the rest). That read runs on every call, so the preview shows the full merged body, and a resource that changes between the preview and the confirmed call is refused rather than overwritten. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTeam id
nameNoTeam name (default: unchanged)
summaryNoShort description of the team
programIdNoId of the program this team belongs to
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
leadAccountIdNoAtlassian account id of the team lead

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses the read-merge behavior, why the tool reads before updating, the concurrency refusal when the resource changes, and the confirmation/token flow. This goes far beyond the annotations' destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, and no contradiction exists.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core action, but it is fairly long. Each clause earns its place by explaining a necessary behavioral subtlety, though the run-on chain could be slightly tightened.

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 a complex confirmation flow, the description is complete: it covers partial update semantics, preview behavior, confirmToken usage, concurrency protection, and client-mode fallback. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 every parameter. The description adds useful behavioral context about omission/merge, but it does not add per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, including for confirmToken.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing Tempo team by id.' It cleanly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tempo_create_team, tempo_delete_team, and tempo_update_account by naming the exact operation and target.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: supply only changed fields, omitted fields keep current values, and confirmation is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context makes when to use this tool obvious.

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