Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
project-manager

project-manager

by samrullo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

pm_update_project

Partially update project fields by providing a project ID and a payload with the changes to apply.

Instructions

PATCH /projects/{project_id} — partial ProjectUpdate fields.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "payload": "<payload>"
    },
    "name": "pm_update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYes
x_user_idNo
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'partial update', which implies mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects, or default behavior when payload is empty. No conflict with annotations as none exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (one sentence) and front-loads the HTTP method and endpoint. However, it could be more informative without becoming verbose, earning a middling score.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (implied), return values are not required, but the description omits key context about input validation, error conditions, or the nature of partial updates. The arbitrary 'payload' object suggests flexibility that is not explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'partial ProjectUpdate fields' without specifying which fields are allowed or how payload is interpreted. The complex nested 'payload' parameter is left ambiguous.

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 clearly states it is a PATCH operation on /projects/{project_id} for partial ProjectUpdate fields, distinguishing it from create or delete siblings.

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 (e.g., pm_create_project for new projects, pm_get_project for retrieval). Prerequisites like project existence are not mentioned.

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