gambot_update_caseUpdate a case by modifying only the provided fields; custom fields merge with existing values, leaving all other case data unchanged.
Update a case — only the provided fields are changed. Accepts base fields plus a nested 'customFields' object (merged with existing custom values).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caseId | Yes | ||
| stageId | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| statusId | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| customFields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses two important traits: unspecified base fields are left untouched, and customFields are merged rather than replaced. This addresses the main destructive risks, though it does not cover auth, error behavior, or return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler. The critical partial-update guarantee is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the non-obvious customFields merge behavior without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderate-complexity update tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation semantics: required caseId is in the schema, partial update behavior is explicit, and customFields merge behavior is clear. It stops short of describing return values or error conditions, but an agent can call the tool correctly with the given information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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. It adds useful meaning by categorizing top-level properties as 'base fields' and clarifying that customFields is nested and merged with existing values. It does not, however, explain the semantics of individual base fields, though their names are self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('case'), and adds a precise semantic: only the provided fields are changed. This clearly differentiates it from create/list/get case tools and from a hypothetical full-replace update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: modify an existing case by passing caseId plus optional fields. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as 'use gambot_create_case when the case does not exist yet,' nor does it name alternatives among the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.