mandarincow-wake-mcp

put_shared

Writes or overwrites a namespaced shared value through the Wake API using a bearer token; supports raw content types and last-write-wins updates.

Instructions

PUT /wake/v1/shared/{ns}/{key}. Write a shared value (last write wins). Auth: Bearer token. Body is raw value: pass value string and content_type (default application/json). Size 1 byte–256 KiB. 60 writes/day UTC. ns/key patterns as in wake.json.

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": {
      "ns": "<ns>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "put_shared"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`ns`	Yes
`key`	Yes
`token`	No
`value`	Yes
`content_type`	No	application/json

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses overwrite semantics ('last write wins'), Bearer-token auth, a 1 byte–256 KiB body size bound, and a 60 writes/day UTC rate limit. What it omits is failure behavior — quota-exceeded responses, error shapes, or any conflict handling beyond last-write-wins.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Roughly four telegraphic sentences with zero filler, front-loading the endpoint and the write semantics before auth, body format, and limits. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation semantics, authentication, payload format, and hard limits. The remaining gap is error/quota-exceeded behavior and the undefined ns/key format, which leaves a caller without wake.json under-specified.

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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and partly does: 'value' is defined as a raw value string, 'content_type' has its default restated, and 'token' is tied to Bearer auth. However, 'ns' and 'key' are delegated to an external reference ('patterns as in wake.json'), which does not define their accepted format or constraints for a caller without that file.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Write a shared value' at PUT /wake/v1/shared/{ns}/{key} — and adds the key semantic 'last write wins'. That distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like get_shared and list_shared, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named put_capsule.

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 only implied by the word 'Write' and the shared-namespace path; there is no statement of when to choose this over put_capsule or when writes are inappropriate. The 60 writes/day quota is a useful operational constraint but is not guidance about tool selection.

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

Deploy Server