Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
honeycomb-mcp-server

honeycomb-mcp-server

by kajirita2002
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

honeycomb_board_update

Modify board details in honeycomb-mcp-server by updating its name, description, or query IDs using the specified board ID for accurate data management.

Instructions

Update an existing board

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": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>"
    },
    "name": "honeycomb_board_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardIdYesBoard ID to update
descriptionNoNew description for the board
nameNoNew name for the board
query_idsNoNew query IDs to include in the board

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap 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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing contextual details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context relative to siblings, and output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'query_ids' relate to board functionality or constraints on 'name' and 'description'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Update an existing board' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'honeycomb_board_create' or 'honeycomb_board_delete' beyond the basic action, missing specific scope details that would distinguish it more clearly.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing board ID), exclusions (e.g., what can't be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'honeycomb_board_create' for new boards or 'honeycomb_board_get' for retrieval, leaving usage context implied at best.

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

Related Tools