Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

Directum RX MCP (rxmcp)

by drxinfra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Hybrid

rx_update_gate

Update a Directum RX project checkpoint by changing only supplied fields: mark it achieved, adjust dates, forecast, description, level, owner, performer, or supervisor; RX updates project card row.

Instructions

Изменить контрольную точку проекта: отметить достигнутой (passed=true и actual_date), поменять прогноз, плановую или прогнозную дату, описание, уровень, ответственного, владельца, контролёра. Меняются только переданные поля; строку в карточке проекта RX обновит сам. Id КТ из блока «Контрольные точки» rx_project. Меняет данные в RX. Перед вызовом перескажите пользователю, что меняется.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "rx_update_gate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesId контрольной точки: число после # в блоке «Контрольные точки» rx_project
nameNoновое название; не передавайте, если не меняется
noteNoпримечание
levelNoуровень контроля: КТ-0, КТ-1 или КТ-2
ownerNoвладелец: фамилия или Id
passedNotrue = контрольная точка достигнута (вместе с actual_date)
performerNoответственный: фамилия или Id
plan_dateNoновая дата (план): ГГГГ-ММ-ДД
assessmentNoпрогноз: в срок, есть несущественные риски, под угрозой
supervisorNoконтролёр: фамилия или Id
actual_dateNoдата (факт), а пока КТ не достигнута, прогнозная дата: ГГГГ-ММ-ДД или «сегодня»
descriptionNoновое описание целиком

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.16.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds real behavioral context: partial-update semantics (only supplied fields change), that the RX project card row is updated automatically, and that it mutates RX data. It does not disclose permissions or the response, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the field list, with the operational rules (partial update, id source, user confirmation) in short clauses. It is somewhat long and the field enumeration partly duplicates the schema, slightly reducing density.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 12-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the id source, partial-update behavior, write side effects, and a confirmation ritual. Missing pieces are the return value and any permission prerequisites, but nothing essential for a correct call is absent.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds the crucial partial-update rule that omitted fields are left untouched, plus the passed=true + actual_date pairing. That is genuine semantic value over the schema's per-field descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Изменить контрольную точку проекта") and enumerates the editable fields, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from rx_create_gates (creation) and rx_project (read). The scope statement "Меняются только переданные поля" further pins down what the operation is.

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 tells the agent where the id comes from (the «Контрольные точки» block of rx_project) and prescribes a workflow step ("Перед вызовом перескажите пользователю, что меняется"). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions versus rx_create_gates, so it falls short of a full 5.

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