GoClaw MCP Server

goclaw_team_update

Modify team configurations including name, description, and member assignments within the GoClaw AI gateway infrastructure.

Instructions

Update a team's settings

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": "goclaw_team_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Team ID
`name`	No
`description`	No
`member_agent_ids`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 4 parameters, low schema coverage (25%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'settings' includes, how updates work, or what to expect in return. More detail is needed given the complexity and lack of structured information.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (25%, only the 'id' parameter has a description). The description mentions 'settings' but doesn't specify which settings correspond to the parameters (name, description, member_agent_ids). It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update a team's settings' clearly states the action (update) and resource (team), but it's vague about what 'settings' encompasses. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'team_create' and 'team_delete' by specifying update rather than create/delete, but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'agent_update' or 'skill_update' beyond the resource type.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing team ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'team_create' or 'team_get'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server