Skip to main content
Glama
jupiterbak

AYX-MCP-Wrapper

by jupiterbak

update_collection_name_or_owner

Modify a collection's name or transfer ownership by specifying its ID, enabling administrators to update organizational records.

Instructions

Update a collection name or owner by its ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collection_idYes
nameYes
owner_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function implementing the update_collection_name_or_owner tool logic using Alteryx server API.
    def update_collection_name_or_owner(self, collection_id: str, name: str, owner_id: str):
        """Update a collection name or owner by its ID"""
        try:
            collection = self.collections_api.collections_get_collection(collection_id)
            if not collection:
                return "Error: Collection not found"
            contract = server_client.UpdateCollectionContract(
                name=name if name else collection.name, owner_id=owner_id if owner_id else collection.owner_id
            )
            api_response = self.collections_api.collections_update_collection(collection_id, contract)
            return pprint.pformat(api_response)
        except ApiException as e:
            return f"Error: {e}"
  • MCP tool registration decorator and wrapper function that calls the handler in tools.py.
    @self.app.tool()
    def update_collection_name_or_owner(collection_id: str, name: str, owner_id: str):
        """Update a collection name or owner by its ID"""
        return self.tools.update_collection_name_or_owner(collection_id, name, owner_id)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates name or owner, implying a mutation, but fails to mention critical details like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It directly communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though it lacks depth due to its brevity.

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 mutation tool with 3 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, leaving significant gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an AI agent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about the parameters—it doesn't explain what 'collection_id', 'name', or 'owner_id' represent, their formats, constraints, or how they interact. This fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 description clearly states the action ('Update') and the target ('collection name or owner by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_schedule_name_or_comment' or 'update_user_details' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'change_schedule_owner' or 'update_user_details' in terms of scope or constraints, keeping it from a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'change_schedule_owner' for owner changes or 'update_user_details' for user-related updates. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing the collection ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jupiterbak/AYX-MCP-Wrapper'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server