specter-skills

Edit currency (admin)

specter_edit_currency

Update an existing currency's properties (name, code, type) by its slug. Use staging mode to safely modify game configuration.

Instructions

Update an existing currency (name, description, code, type, …). Identify it by slug/name. MUTATES live game config — confirm and prefer staging.

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": {
      "currency": "<currency>"
    },
    "name": "specter_edit_currency"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No
`fields`	No	Any other currency fields
`currency`	Yes	Currency slug/name to edit
`projectId`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds 'MUTATES live game config' beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Confirms mutating nature and provides risk warning, adding value over structured fields.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and identifier, then add a critical behavioral note. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on required vs optional parameters and what is returned. The staging warning is valuable, but more parameter context would improve completeness.

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 low (29%). Description mentions 'slug/name' for the currency parameter but does not detail other parameters like code, name, type, fields, projectId. Provides general field list but insufficient compensation for low coverage.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing currency' and lists specific fields (name, description, code, type). It distinguishes from sibling tools like specter_create_currency and specter_list_currencies.

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?

Explicitly warns 'MUTATES live game config — confirm and prefer staging', advising caution when to use. Does not name alternative tools but provides clear context for safe usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server