Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Grove

Grove

by sai-softwareforest
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

grove_work_update

Update a local work item's status, plan, notes, or title to move it through ready, in progress, review, done, or blocked and keep its details current.

Instructions

Update a work item: any of status, plan, notes, title (at least one). Each given field replaces the stored value. Use to move work through ready -> in_progress -> review -> done (or blocked) and to keep the plan and notes current. This only updates Grove's local record. Grove is local only: scans are read-only and nothing is sent to GitHub or any other service.

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": "grove_work_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWork item id.
planNo
notesNo
titleNo
statusNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: each given field replaces the stored value (replace, not merge), at least one field is required, and the write is confined to Grove's local record with nothing synced to GitHub. It does not address invalid status transitions or error behavior, so not a 5.

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-loaded with the operation and field list, then usage, then constraints — a sensible ordering. The closing sentence about scans being read-only is tangential to this tool and is wasted words, but the rest is tight.

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?

The tool is simple (5 params, one required) and the description covers mutation semantics and local-only scope well. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about what is returned after an update (the updated item, a success flag, nothing), leaving an agent unable to plan around the response.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage (only 'id' is documented), the description must compensate. It does name all four updatable fields, supplies the status enum's workflow meaning, and clarifies replace semantics — but it never explains what belongs in 'plan' vs 'notes' or what happens to omitted fields' stored values beyond the replace statement.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Update a work item') and enumerates exactly the mutable fields (status, plan, notes, title), plus the minimum-one-field constraint. This is unmistakably distinct from create/get/list siblings without needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context: moving work through ready -> in_progress -> review -> done (or blocked), and keeping plan and notes current. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions (e.g., when to create instead of update), so it stops short of a 5.

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