Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aspa-mcp

aspa-mcp

by octos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Alterar configuração

aspa_update_settings
Destructive

Updates aspa-mcp team or personal YAML settings via dotted paths, preserving comments and backups while validating changes and rolling back invalid values.

Instructions

Change aspa-mcp settings in equipe.yaml (team: empresa, rascunhos, notificacoes, rascunho_automatico defaults) or pessoal.yaml (personal overrides, e.g. rascunhos.assinatura and notificacoes). Keys are dotted paths, e.g. {"empresa.nome": "X", "rascunhos.exemplos": [{"situacao": "...", "resposta": "..."}], "notificacoes.abas": ["todos"]}. Keeps comments, saves a .bak copy, validates and rolls back invalid values. Creates the files from templates when missing. The knowledge folder and audit settings cannot be changed here (only by editing the file by hand). Confirm the values with the user before saving.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "aspa_update_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
changesYesDotted path -> new value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a write with destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot express: comments are preserved, a .bak copy is written, invalid values are validated and rolled back, and missing files are created from templates. These details materially change the risk calculus for an agent about to overwrite user configuration.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: the target files come first, then key syntax, then side effects, then hard limits, then the confirmation requirement. The long parenthetical enumerating config sections is the one place where wording could be tightened without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and nested free-form values, the description covers the destination semantics, the key format, the write side effects (backup, validation, rollback, template creation), and the out-of-scope domains. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and warn the user appropriately.

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?

Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description carries real weight here: it explains what the "equipe" and "pessoal" enum values mean semantically and shows concrete dotted-path examples with nested value shapes ("rascunhos.exemplos": [{"situacao": ..., "resposta": ...}]). That is strong compensation for the sparse schema, though it does not enumerate every valid key namespace.

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 names a specific verb+resource ("Change aspa-mcp settings") and pins down both target files (equipe.yaml for team defaults, pessoal.yaml for personal overrides). It explicitly excludes knowledge-folder and audit settings, which is exactly how an agent separates this tool from aspa_save_knowledge and aspa_audit_log.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear when-to-use context (team vs personal config, with sample keys), a when-not-to-use boundary (knowledge folder and audit settings, only editable by hand), and an operational precondition ("Confirm the values with the user before saving"). It stops short of naming the sibling tools an agent should prefer for the excluded domains, leaving that inference to the reader.

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