keyshade-mcp

Official

by keyshade-xyz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

update_workspace_role

Update a workspace role's name, color, authorities, and project-environment access controls in Keyshade.

Instructions

Updates a workspace role

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": {
      "workspaceRoleSlug": "<workspaceRoleSlug>"
    },
    "name": "update_workspace_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New role name
`colorCode`	No	New role color code
`authorities`	No	New role authorities
`description`	No	New role description
`workspaceRoleSlug`	Yes	Workspace role slug to update
`projectEnvironments`	No	Project-environment access control

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, permissions, or whether the update is destructive. 'Updates' implies mutation but lacks necessary context for an agent to use safely.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at only three words, but this brevity sacrifices needed detail. It is front-loaded but incomplete, earning a middling score for conciseness without sacrificing correctness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has six parameters, including nested objects (projectEnvironments), and no output schema or annotations. The description provides no context about the update's effect, preconditions, or return values, making it severely incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema itself already documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.

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 'Updates a workspace role', specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_workspace_role or delete_workspace_role, which limits clarity in distinguishing usage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_workspace_role or delete_workspace_role). The agent receives no context for deciding under what circumstances an update is appropriate.

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