Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ostrov-mcp

ostrov-mcp

by iia-arg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

edit_estimate

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an owned draft estimate only after explicit user confirmation and reject stale versions to prevent conflicting edits.

Instructions

Edit an owned draft after explicit user request; stale versions conflict.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "plan": "<plan>",
      "catalogVersion": "<catalogVersion>",
      "documentVersion": "<documentVersion>",
      "requestKey": "<requestKey>",
      "userConfirmed": "<userConfirmed>",
      "estimateId": "<estimateId>"
    },
    "name": "edit_estimate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planYes
estimateIdYes
requestKeyYesUnique key for one intended write; reuse exactly after an uncertain result. Use a new key for changed input.
userConfirmedYesSet only after the person explicitly requests this action.
catalogVersionYes
documentVersionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds real context beyond them: edits are restricted to owned drafts (an authorization constraint) and stale document versions will conflict (optimistic concurrency). It stops short of saying how to resolve a conflict or what state a rejected edit leaves behind.

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?

One sentence, three clauses, zero filler: what it does, the precondition for calling, and the failure mode. Information is front-loaded with the action and constraint before the caveat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, six-required-parameter mutation with a polymorphic plan object and no output schema, this is far too thin. It says nothing about what the edit replaces, how conflicts should be resolved, whether requestKey replay is expected, or what a successful response confirms - all of which an agent needs before firing a destructive write.

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 only 33%, so the description owes more than it delivers. 'Stale versions conflict' usefully explains why documentVersion matters and 'owned draft' signals the estimateId ownership rule, but catalogVersion and the entire complex plan payload get no explanation in either the description or the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb+resource pair is specific: 'Edit an owned draft', with the ownership qualifier narrowing the target. It does not name the sibling it is distinct from (save_estimate for creation, get_estimate for reads), so an agent must infer that boundary from the name rather than the description.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'after explicit user request' gives one clear precondition for calling, which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, it offers no exclusions or alternative routing - nothing says to use save_estimate for a new draft or get_estimate to read one first, and no guidance on what to do when the version is stale.

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