Skip to main content
Glama
ianderso

gramps-evidence-mcp

by ianderso
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_place

DestructiveIdempotent

Edit a place's type, parent enclosure, name, title, or coordinates with structural guard rails: parents must exist and enclosure cycles are refused.

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', 'Cemetery', etc. Omit to leave unchanged.
remove_parentNoClear the enclosure instead of setting one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover safety (destructive, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds distinct behavioral disclosures beyond them: the parent must already exist, cannot create an enclosure cycle, and a place with several dated enclosures is refused rather than flattened. These refusal semantics are exactly what an agent needs before mutating structural data.

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 verb+resource, and the constraint paragraph earns its place. The 'This is the tool update_object_fields deliberately refuses to be' flourish is slightly rhetorical, but overall the text is dense and purposeful.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral layer (refusal rules, structural guard rails) an agent needs. It could state explicit permissions or reversibility, but coverage is strong.

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 nine parameters, including the parent/replace-enclosure constraints. The description restates the editable fields and the parent guard rails, adding marginal meaning over the schema, so the 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?

The first sentence names a specific verb (edit) and enumerates the resources touched (type, parent enclosure, name, title, coordinates). It then explicitly positions itself against sibling update_object_fields, so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Clear routing signal: this is where structural place edits go, unlike update_object_fields. Guard conditions (parent must exist, no cycle, refuse multi-dated enclosures) and workflow aims (type every place, parent every non-country place) give strong context, though no explicit 'when not to use this tool' is stated.

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