Skip to main content
Glama

update_customer_property

Update customer properties by modifying only the specified fields. Supports changes to display name, description, required status, default values, options, and activation.

Instructions

Update a customer property. Only the fields you pass are changed.

property_type, is_multi and settings cannot be changed after creation — delete and recreate the property instead.

Args: property_id: UUID of the customer property display_name: User-facing label. Also re-slugs the property's internal name, so it must stay unique in the workspace. relation_type: ISSUE | USER — only for RELATION properties description: Property description is_required: Whether a value must be set; forces default_value to be empty default_value: Default value(s); at most one unless the property is is_multi is_active: Whether the property is active options: For OPTION type — [{"id": str, ...}] to edit an existing option, or [{"name": str, ...}] without an id to add one external_source: External system this property came from external_id: The property's ID in that external system

Returns: The updated CustomerProperty

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
optionsNo
is_activeNo
descriptionNo
external_idNo
is_requiredNo
property_idYes
display_nameNo
default_valueNo
relation_typeNo
external_sourceNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
nameNo
optionsNo
is_multiNo
settingsNo
is_activeNo
workspaceNo
created_atNo
created_byNo
deleted_atNo
logo_propsNo
sort_orderNo
updated_atNo
updated_byNo
descriptionNo
external_idNo
is_requiredNo
display_nameYes
default_valueNo
property_typeYes
relation_typeNo
external_sourceNo
validation_rulesNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains partial updates, immutable fields, display_name re-slugging and uniqueness, is_required forcing default_value empty, and options behavior (edit vs add). This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context beyond what the schema or annotations would convey.

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 well-structured: a concise summary line, a critical warning, a clear Args list, and a Returns line. Each parameter explanation is short but information-dense. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it easy to scan and parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a 10-parameter mutation tool with an output schema. The description covers all parameters, key constraints (partial updates, immutable fields, field interactions), and return type. It gives enough context for correct invocation without needing additional details like permissions (not expected here). The presence of an output schema means return format needs no further elaboration.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It does so thoroughly: every parameter is explained with meaning beyond type, e.g., display_name's re-slugging/uniqueness, relation_type's allowed values and condition, options' edit-vs-add semantics, and constraints on default_value and is_required. This greatly exceeds the minimal schema information.

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 description begins with 'Update a customer property', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like update_work_item_property and update_customer by explicitly naming 'customer property'. The partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') further clarify its scope.

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?

The description provides clear when-not guidance: 'property_type, is_multi and settings cannot be changed after creation — delete and recreate the property instead.' This tells the agent to avoid this tool for immutable fields and offers an alternative action. However, it does not name specific alternative tools (e.g., delete_customer_property/create_customer_property), so it falls short of a full 5.

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/leigangzhang/plane-mcp-server-adapter'

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