Skip to main content
Glama

Edit an item

update_item
Destructive

Modify an existing intake item to fix field type, label, hint, required status, or accepted file formats, unblocking clients when the original request was wrong.

Instructions

Change one item on an intake that is already with the client — its type, label, hint, whether it is required, and which file formats it accepts.

Reach for this when the field turns out to be the wrong shape: you asked for an image and the client only has their logo as a PDF, or what you asked for as a line of text is really a file. Widening the accepted formats or switching the type unblocks them without adding a duplicate item and waiving the original.

The item key cannot be changed — results come back under it, so renaming would break whatever reads them. Add a new item instead.

If the client has already answered and the change would make their answer invalid, the call fails and nothing is touched. Repeat it with discard_submitted_value: true to clear the answer and ask them again. A change that leaves their answer valid (a new label, a wider limit) never discards anything.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
helpNoHint under the label. null clears it.
typeNo
labelNoHuman-readable label shown to the client.
optionsNo
patternNo
item_keyYesKey of the item to change.
requiredNo
intake_idYesIntake ID returned by define_intake.
constraintsNoSame shape as define_intake, e.g. { "formats": ["svg","png","pdf"] }. null clears all constraints.
discard_submitted_valueNoGo ahead even though it throws away what the client already sent. Only set this after the call has failed once for that reason.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes far beyond by detailing the exact failure mode (invalidating a submitted answer), the effect of discard_submitted_value, and the guarantee that nothing is touched on failure. It also clarifies that a non-invalidating change never discards answers. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is three paragraphs but every sentence carries purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action, then usage, constraints, and failure handling. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not bloated, and the structure is logical.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation with destructive hint, failure modes), the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, when to use, key constraints (immutable key), failure handling, and parameter semantics for the most important parameters. No output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 60%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of key parameters: type, label, help (hint), required, constraints (file formats), and discard_submitted_value in detail. However, it does not clarify pattern or options, which remain under-documented. Overall it adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Change') and specific resource ('one item on an intake') and enumerates the editable fields (type, label, hint, required, file formats). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it edits existing items already with the client, versus add_items or define_intake. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given with concrete examples ('field turns out to be the wrong shape'), plus a clear alternative ('Add a new item instead') for changing the item key. It also explains the failure condition (client already answered and change invalidates their answer) and how to proceed (discard_submitted_value). This fully routes an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.