Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
remus-mcp

remus-mcp

by christianmz565
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

rem_update

Update an entity in a REMUS Jet project by specifying its type, ID, and patch fields to apply changes.

Instructions

Update entity

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "oid": "<oid>",
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "rem_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
oidYes
typeYes
patchYes
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'Update entity'. It does not disclose side effects, partial-update semantics of 'patch', error behavior, required permissions, or what happens if the oid/type does not exist.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It has no informative content beyond what the tool name already conveys and does not earn its place as a useful aid.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a mutation tool with 4 required parameters, a large enum, a nested patch object, and no output schema or annotations. A two-word description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly or understand its behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not explain that 'patch' is likely a partial field update, what 'type' refers to, or how 'project_id' scopes the operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action and broad resource ('Update entity'), so an agent can tell this is an update operation. However, 'entity' is generic and does not specify which rem item types, how the update is applied, or how it differs from the sibling create/get/list/delete operations beyond the verb.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage context is provided. The description does not say when to choose rem_update over rem_create, rem_get, rem_delete, or any other sibling, and it gives no prerequisites or examples. This leaves the agent to infer from the tool name and schema alone.

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