Skip to main content
Glama

Update persona

update_persona
Idempotent

Edit a playbook's persona fields—name, system prompt, or metadata—while leaving omitted settings unchanged.

Instructions

Edit the playbook's one persona: name, system prompt or metadata. Omitted fields stay unchanged. Example: {playbook_id, system_prompt: 'Review Python code'}. Requires personas:write or full. Use reset_persona only to discard custom persona settings. Use update_playbook for project name, visibility or instructions. Legacy persona_id is optional and must equal playbook_id if supplied.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name
metadataNoNew metadata
persona_idNoMust equal playbook_id; the persona is a singleton stored on the playbook
playbook_idYesUUID of the playbook
system_promptNoNew system prompt

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.4
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "playbook_id",
      -  "persona_id"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "playbook_id"
      +]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains partial-update semantics with omitted fields staying unchanged, the singleton persona model, and the legacy persona_id constraint. It also discloses the required authorization scope, which is useful behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: the edit action and affected fields appear first, followed by alternatives and constraints. Every sentence adds practical information without unnecessary repetition.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description covers the operation, partial-update behavior, permission requirement, sibling alternatives, and legacy parameter constraint. That is enough for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds a useful example and reinforces the legacy persona_id rule, but most parameter meaning is already available in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: editing the playbook's single persona, including its name, system prompt, or metadata. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming reset_persona and update_playbook for adjacent operations.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says when to use this tool and when to use alternatives: reset_persona for discarding custom settings, and update_playbook for project name, visibility, or instructions. It also states the required permission, personas:write or full.

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