Skip to main content
Glama

Update Agent Project Access

update_agent_project_access
Destructive

Update a project agent's role or access status. Use 'removed' to disable access while preserving audit history. Requires project selection and human approval.

Instructions

Use when: Human project-manager tool: update a project-scoped agent principal role or status. Use status=removed to disable access without deleting audit history. Do not use when: a narrower tool better matches the intent, the project scope is unresolved, or the user has declined the action. Requires: authenticated API authority and an API-authorized selected Project. Effect: canonical mutation. This mutation has no client idempotency key in the current contract; do not retry it automatically after an unknown outcome. Human approval: required before this action or its canonical follow-up. Then: follow typed result state; review pending proposals/drafts before any canonical apply. On failure: login_required → login; project_not_selected → list_projects/select_project; permission_denied �� stop; stale_version or conflict → read current state; projection_pending → report canonical success separately and wait.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoProject role to grant to the agent.
statusNoOptional project access status. Defaults to active when granting access.
agentKeyYesProject-local agent key to update.
projectIdNoOptional project id. Defaults to the project chosen with select_project. If omitted and no project is selected, the call is rejected with instructions to select one.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
statusYes
warningsYes
authorityYes
projectIdYes
reviewUrlYes
idempotencyYes
nextActionsYes
reviewRequiredYes
canonicalVersionYes
projectionStatusYes
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description details idempotency (no idempotency key, do not retry), human approval requirement, error recovery steps (login_required, project_not_selected, etc.), and required post-actions (review proposals/drafts). This adds significant 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Do not use when, Requires, Effect, etc.) and front-loaded key information. While slightly lengthy, every sentence contributes value, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: usage context, parameter behavior, error handling, and follow-up actions. Given the presence of an output schema, the description is fully complete for an AI 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.

Parameters4/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds extra context like using status='removed' to disable access without deleting audit history and clarifying default behaviors for status and projectId. This enhances understanding beyond 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 clearly states the tool updates a project-scoped agent principal's role or status, using the verb 'update' and specifying the resource type. It differentiates from the sibling 'grant_agent_project_access' by focusing on existing access modification.

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?

The description explicitly provides 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, including prerequisites like authenticated authority and selected project. It also mentions alternative scopes and user consent, guiding appropriate tool selection.

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/my-abyss-project/abyss-mcp'

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