Skip to main content
Glama

update_intent

Revise an in-progress intent when scope shifts or work runs long: refresh summary or file globs, renew the TTL heartbeat, and re-check for collisions mid-session.

Instructions

Update an in-progress intent. Call when the work changes shape (revise summary or touches — collision checks run against these fields, so stale globs silently miss real collisions) or when work runs long (a call with just the id renews the TTL heartbeat; active intents expire after ~48h without one). Calling with just the id ALSO returns fresh overlaps — the cheap mid-session collision re-check, since a post-time check goes stale over a long session. Treat a warn here exactly like a warn at post time: tell your user before proceeding. Overlaps carry excerpts, and overlaps_omitted counts any the server cut per level — use get_intent(id) for a full record. Never use this to finish work — call complete_intent for that.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe intent id returned by post_intent.
titleNoRevised short headline, ≤80 chars.
branchNoGit branch, if it has changed.
summaryNoRevised one-paragraph summary: what + why.
touchesNoRevised repo-relative glob patterns. Replaces the existing list — include all globs, not just new ones.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the ~48h TTL expiry, that an id-only call renews the heartbeat, that stale globs cause silent collision misses, and that warn must be surfaced to the user. It also explains overlaps carry excerpts and that overlaps_omitted counts truncations — behavioral context well beyond the schema.

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 purpose, then conditions, then returns, then the exclusion. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; the parenthetical asides make it read long, though little is truly expendable.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by explaining return values (overlaps, overlaps_omitted, excerpts) and directing to get_intent for a full record. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: an id-only call still renews TTL and returns fresh overlaps, and touches replacement semantics drive collision checks. It goes past restating the per-field descriptions.

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+resource ('Update an in-progress intent') and scopes it to in-progress work, immediately distinguishing it from complete_intent and get_intent by name. An agent can tell it apart from its siblings without opening 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit triggers ('when the work changes shape', 'when work runs long'), the id-only heartbeat case, and a hard exclusion ('Never use this to finish work — call complete_intent for that'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are spelled out.

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