Skip to main content
Glama
rtdesignstudio

cemainou

by rtdesignstudio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

Update File Tool

update_file

Rename, re-label, or remove a project file or link by ID, or rename/archive a project document by title; actions require permission and confirmation.

Instructions

Renames, re-labels or removes a file or link (by its id, from read_document, project_brief or a task) or a project document (by its title): title renames it, role sets a file's or link's role on the project (brief, contract, design...), remove: true deletes a file or link for good, or archives a document (its versions stay). Only whoever added it, the project lead or an admin removes or re-labels; a task's file only whoever added it, and only while the task is open (on a closed task the files stay as reference). Only when the person asks, after confirming.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe file's or link's id (from read_document, project_brief, start_task or search).
repoNoFor a document: the git remotes of the working directory.
roleNoA project file's or link's role ("none" clears it).
titleNoThe new name.
removeNotrue deletes the file or link (for good), or archives the document.
projectNoFor a document: the project (slug or name), when it is not this session's.
sessionNoThis session's id, from the cemainou line at the start of the session. The session's project wins over the repo.
documentNoOr a project document's title.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses permanent deletion versus document archiving, permission rules, and task-open constraints. It stops short of covering failure behavior or response details, but the key mutation side effects are clear.

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?

Front-loads the operations and is information-dense with little waste. The main drawback is its long, complex sentence structure, which makes some constraints harder to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the key complexity for a mutation tool: destructive behavior, permissions, task status, and confirmation requirements. It leaves some parameter distinctions to the schema, but is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces title, role, and remove semantics, but largely repeats schema descriptions and does not add much for project/session/repo distinctions.

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?

States specific verbs and resources: renames, re-labels, removes; files, links, project documents. It distinguishes id-based file/link updates from title-based document updates, making the tool clearly identifiable among siblings.

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?

Provides clear usage context, including that it should only be used when the person asks and after confirming. It also states permissions and task-status constraints, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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