Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
booking_chest

booking_chest

by dsddet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_team

Partially update an existing team's details, such as its name or bio, by providing the team ID and the specific fields to change.

Instructions

Update team details (PATCH — partial update).

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": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesFields to update (e.g., {"name": "New Name", "bio": "Description"})
team_idYesTeam ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: partial update semantics (PATCH). However, no annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention auth requirements, return format, or side effects, but for a simple update it provides minimal transparency.

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?

The entire description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the action and method. 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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters, an output schema, and full schema coverage. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail (no annotations) means the description is only minimally sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters (team_id, fields), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Update team details (PATCH — partial update)' uses a specific verb ('Update'), identifies the resource ('team'), and adds the method/scope ('PATCH — partial update'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like update_team_membership, though 'details' is somewhat broad.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_team_membership or update_team_event_type. The PATCH note implies partial updates, but it does not explicitly state conditions or exclusions.

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