Skip to main content
Glama
concurrence-hq

forge-mcp

by concurrence-hq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

forge_service_update

Update an existing service by specifying only the fields to change. Modify name, description, status, linked agent, context graph, tags, keyterms, or org.

Instructions

Update an existing service. Only provided fields are changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoService name
tagsNoTags (alphanumeric keys and values, no hyphens or special characters)
org_idNoOrg ID (uses active org if omitted)
agent_idNoID of the agent to link
keytermsNoKeywords for audio transcription correction (each: 1-3 lowercase words, a-z and hyphens only)
is_activeNoWhether the service is active
service_idYesThe service ID to update
descriptionNoBrief description
service_hierarchical_state_machine_idNoID of the context graph to link

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.13

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It only discloses partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed') but omits critical details such as authentication requirements, idempotency, side effects on linked resources, or error handling.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It explains the partial update but fails to cover return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools like 'forge_service_create'.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that only provided fields are updated (not resetting omitted fields), which is beyond what the schema explicitly states.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing service', distinguishing it from the sibling 'forge_service_create' (create). The phrase 'Only provided fields are changed' adds specificity about the partial update behavior.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'forge_service_create' or 'forge_agent_update'. No prerequisites or exclusions provided, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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