Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Devbook MCP Server

Devbook MCP Server

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

devbook_update_project

Update an existing project's name or description using its ID to keep project details accurate and current.

Instructions

Update an existing project's name or description

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "devbook_update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the project to update
nameNoNew name for the project
descriptionNoNew description for the project

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 supplied, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the update is partial or full-replacement, what happens to omitted fields, how a nonexistent or invalid id is handled, or whether the operation is reversible — all significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple 3-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero annotations it should at least state partial-update behavior and error expectations.

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%, so id, name, and description are already self-documenting; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond restating the two optional fields and does not clarify partial-update semantics of 'id'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing project') and names the two mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It does not explicitly contrast with devbook_create_project or devbook_get_project, but the verb makes the distinction reasonably evident.

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 on when to prefer this over siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, ownership/permission needs), and no indication that fields are optional/partial. The agent must infer that only the supplied fields change.

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