Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_place

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a place's type, name, title, coordinates, or enclosing parent while enforcing valid hierarchy rules, including existing parents and cycle prevention.

Instructions

Edit a place's type, parent enclosure, name, title, or coordinates.

This is the tool update_object_fields deliberately refuses to be: place_type and the enclosure are structural, so they get guard rails here -- the parent must already exist, setting it cannot create an enclosure cycle, and a place holding several dated enclosures (a territory-to-state succession) is refused rather than silently flattened. Aim for every place typed, every non-country place parented, and street addresses on events rather than in the place tree.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNoPlace code (postal etc.).
nameNoNew place NAME (the short local name, e.g. 'Cedar Flat'). Omit to leave unchanged.
placeYesPlace handle or gramps_id (e.g. 'P0001').
titleNoNew full TITLE (e.g. 'Cedar Flat, Brannock County, Ohio, USA') -- the string event-place resolution matches against.
parentNoHandle or gramps_id of the ENCLOSING place (e.g. the county a city sits in). Must already exist -- never created from a name. Replaces the current single enclosure; refused if the place carries several dated enclosures.
latitudeNoLatitude, e.g. '40.1532'.
longitudeNoLongitude, e.g. '-82.4101'.
place_typeNoNew place type: 'Country', 'State', 'County', 'City', 'Town', 'Village', 'Parish', 'Farm', 'Building', etc., or a custom type the tree already has. Omit to leave unchanged.
remove_parentNoClear the enclosure instead of setting one.
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. Changed2 schema fields 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"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / place_type / description
      Previous value: -"New place type: 'Country', 'State', 'County', 'City', 'Town', 'Village', 'Cemetery', etc. Omit to leave unchanged."New value: +"New place type: 'Country', 'State', 'County', 'City', 'Town', 'Village', 'Parish', 'Farm', 'Building', etc., or a custom type the tree already has. Omit to leave unchanged."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/non-read-only, and the description adds substantive rules on top: the parent must pre-exist, cycles are prevented, multi-dated-enclosure places are refused rather than flattened, and allow_new_type rejects near-misses with closest-name suggestions. This is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the structured hints.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource in the first sentence, then a dense but purposeful paragraph of guard rails. No filler, though the second sentence is heavy enough to require careful reading.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky structural edits and failure modes an agent needs. It does not describe the success/failure response shape, but annotations carry the safety profile, so the gap is minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: parent semantics (replaces the current single enclosure, refused if dated enclosures exist) and the allow_new_type refusal behavior. The remaining params are left to the schema, which fully documents them.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Edit a place') and enumerates the exact editable facets (type, parent enclosure, name, title, coordinates). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling update_object_fields, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Positions itself against update_object_fields ('the tool update_object_fields deliberately refuses to be') and gives a modeling directive ('every place typed, every non-country place parented, street addresses on events'). It stops short of a crisp when-not-to-use rule, but the routing context is clear.

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