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, preserving citations. Specify new given name, surname, nickname, or type to update.

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

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the edit is in place and the name keeps its citations. It does not restate the removal-refusal rule (that lives in the schema), so not 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the alternative routing. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With a fully documented 10-parameter schema, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description supplies the missing pieces: in-place editing semantics, citation preservation, and sibling routing. The removal-refusal prerequisite is only in the schema, a minor gap.

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% and the schema documents every field, including the NameMatch selector, removal refusal, and allow_new_type behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the update_person(name=...) illustration, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb set (correct/retype/remove) plus the exact resource (one alternate name), and it names the boundary siblings: 'The primary name is update_person(name=...); a new name is add_alternate_name.' An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use vs alternatives: this tool for editing/removing an existing alternate name, update_person for the primary name, add_alternate_name for creating one. The selection condition is stated outright, not implied.

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