Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_object_fields

DestructiveIdempotent

Set scalar fields on any Gramps object such as places, notes, or repositories to correct simple values while leaving structural reference lists untouched.

Instructions

Set scalar fields on any object -- the escape hatch for places, notes, repositories and the rest.

Only scalar fields are settable. Structural lists (citation_list, event_ref_list, media_list, ...) are refused on purpose: replacing one wholesale is exactly how references get silently dropped. Each has its own tool -- cite_object, detach_object, tag_object, attach_media.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYesHandle or gramps_id.
fieldsYesScalar fields to set, e.g. {'name': 'Cedar Flat, Brannock, Ohio, USA'} on a place, or {'text': '...'} on a note.
object_typeYesType of object to edit.
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. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: structural lists are refused on purpose because wholesale replacement silently drops references, and near-miss types are refused with the closest names. It does not address permissions or failure/return behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the constraint, then the rationale, then the alternatives. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a full-coverage schema, the description supplies the critical missing risk context (list refusal and silent reference loss) and routes list edits to siblings. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain returns; minor gaps around the generic-vs-specific update tool boundary remain.

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 itself gives the format example for 'fields' and the near-miss behavior for allow_new_type. The description reinforces the scalar-only constraint but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Set scalar fields on any object', then scopes it as the generic escape hatch for places, notes, repositories and the rest. It explicitly names what it does not handle (structural lists) and which siblings do, so an agent can tell it apart from cite_object, detach_object, tag_object and attach_media.

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?

Provides clear context: it is the generic fallback for scalar edits, and structural list operations must go to their dedicated tools (cite_object, detach_object, tag_object, attach_media). It does not, however, direct the agent toward or away from the specific update_person/update_place/update_event siblings present in the toolset.

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