Skip to main content
Glama
openhoat

aik-mcp

by openhoat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update

Refresh a previously installed content item when a newer version exists in the knowledge base, for opencode, Claude Code, Cline, Codex, or Copilot.

Instructions

Update a previously installed content item if a newer version is available in the knowledge base. Supports opencode, Claude Code, and Cline.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath of the content to update (e.g. "rules/typescript")
agentYesTarget AI agent (opencode, claude-code, cline, codex, or copilot).
scopeNoUpdate scope (project or global).project
projectDirNoProject directory (defaults to current working directory). Config files are found by walking up.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "project",
+  "description": "Update scope (project or global).",
+  "enum": [
+    "project",
+    "global"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / agent / description
      Previous value: -"Target AI agent. Auto-detected from existing config files if not specified (opencode, claude-code, cline)."New value: +"Target AI agent (opencode, claude-code, cline, codex, or copilot)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / agent / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "opencode",
-  "claude-code",
-  "cline"
-]New value: +[
+  "opencode",
+  "claude-code",
+  "cline",
+  "codex",
+  "copilot"
+]
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "path"
-]New value: +[
+  "path",
+  "agent"
+]
  3. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It states the version precondition but says nothing about what happens when no newer version exists (no-op vs. error), what happens if the item was never installed, whether existing files are overwritten or backed up, or what permissions are needed for a mutation.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action and its precondition front-loaded. The trailing agent-support sentence is compact but partially inaccurate, which costs it the top mark.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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 and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' and the version precondition but omits the outcome/return information an agent would want given no output schema exists, plus error behavior for uninstalled items.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description actively narrows the agent set to 'opencode, Claude Code, and Cline' while the schema enum allows five values (opencode, claude-code, cline, codex, copilot). That omission risks steering agents away from valid targets, so it detracts rather than adds.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('update a previously installed content item') and adds a crucial qualifier ('if a newer version is available in the knowledge base') that meaningfully separates it from siblings like install/reinstall. It stops short of naming those siblings, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: update content that is already installed when a newer version exists. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over check_updates, reinstall, or install, nor any stated precondition failure behavior.

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