Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_alternate_name

DestructiveIdempotent

Correct, retype, or remove a person's alternate name in place while preserving citations; identify it via get_person.

Instructions

Correct, retype or remove one alternate name, in place.

Edited in place, the name keeps its citations. The primary name is update_person(name=...); a new name is add_alternate_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
givenNoNew given name(s). Omit to keep.
matchYesWhich alternate name, e.g. {'surname': 'Calloway', 'type': 'Also Known As'}. get_person lists them with their index.
personYesPerson handle or gramps_id.
removeNoRemove the name. Refused while it carries citations or notes; of identical duplicates, one is removed.
surnameNoNew surname. Omit to keep.
nicknameNoNew nickname.
name_typeNoNew type, e.g. 'Married Name' for a name filed as 'Also Known As'.
name_prefixNoNew surname prefix.
name_suffixNoNew suffix.
allow_new_typeNoAccept a type that is neither a Gramps standard type nor one of the tree's custom types, creating it as a new custom type. Only when meant: a near-miss is refused with the closest names.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_new_type
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Accept a type that is neither a Gramps standard type nor one of the tree's custom types, creating it as a new custom type. Only when meant: a near-miss is refused with the closest names.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the useful fact that edits preserve citations ('the name keeps its citations'), but doesn't describe what happens to other citations, permissions required, or conflict behavior beyond what the schema states.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Some redundancy between the first line and the citation follow-up, and the trailing newline/blank line is wasted space, but overall tight.

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 ten-parameter mutation tool with rich schema documentation and clear annotations, the description covers the essential what/when/alternatives. The 'in place' semantics are stated, and citation preservation is noted. It doesn't discuss failure modes or return shape, but no output schema is claimed and the schema itself carries the parameter semantics.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all ten parameters thoroughly, including the match object fields and the index disambiguation logic. The description's only added parameter insight is the citation-preservation note, which is marginal against a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('update one alternate name, in place') and enumerates the three operations (correct/retype/remove). The description explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools: 'The primary name is update_person(name=...); a new name is add_alternate_name.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names the two most-confusable siblings explicitly and routes the agent to the right one for primary-name edits and for new names. The constraint on removal ('Refused while it carries citations or notes') is surfaced in the schema, and the in-place editing behavior is described clearly.

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