Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
organisation.md

organisation.md

by shashank-sn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_section

Propose an update to a section in organisation.md by submitting new content and creating a pull request for review.

Instructions

Propose an update to a section in organisation.md. Creates a pull request for review.

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": {
      "section": "<section>",
      "content": "<content>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "update_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sectionYesThe section heading to update
contentYesThe new content for this section
messageYesA brief description of what changed and why

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that it creates a pull request, implying a non‑destructive workflow. However, no annotations exist, and details like permissions, prerequisites, or what happens if the section is missing are omitted.

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?

Two short, front‑loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Each sentence serves a clear purpose.

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?

Provides the essential purpose and outcome, but given no output schema and no annotations, more context (e.g., behavior on missing sections, review process details) would improve completeness for a tool among many siblings.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'section in organisation.md', and mentions the outcome 'creates a pull request for review'. However, does not distinguish from sibling tool 'propose_change' which may have similar function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or when to avoid. With siblings like 'propose_change' and 'read_section', the description does not help the agent choose between them.

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