Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-adr

mcp-adr

by mauriziomocci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

adr_update

Modify an existing ADR by replacing its markdown content with updated decision details.

Instructions

Overwrite an existing ADR with new markdown content.

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": {
      "number": "<number>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "adr_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
numberYes
contentYes
project_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description states 'overwrite' implying destructive action (replaces content), but does not disclose whether history is preserved, if permissions are needed, or if the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool without annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loading the core action. It is concise, but could be expanded to cover behavioral notes without being verbose.

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, the description is inadequate. It does not mention return values (despite having an output schema), error conditions, or the effect on linked ADRs. Sibling tools exist (e.g., adr_history) that could be referenced.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The three parameters (number, content, project_path) are not explained beyond their names. The agent has no context on valid formats for content, or the role of project_path.

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 the verb 'overwrite' and the resource 'existing ADR', and specifies the action is with 'new markdown content'. It distinguishes from siblings like adr_create (creates new) and adr_update_status (only updates status), but could be more explicit about the scope of overwrite (e.g., replaces entire content).

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 use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., adr_supersede, adr_update_status). No prerequisites or context provided. The agent must infer from the name and description.

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