Skip to main content
Glama
soil-dev

capsulemcp

by soil-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_track

Partially update track fields to change only what you need, like marking a track complete, while preserving the rest.

Instructions

Update a track instance. Capsule's PUT semantics are partial — provide only the fields you want to change in fields. Common: { complete: true } to mark a track completed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
fieldsYesObject of fields to update on the track. Capsule's PUT semantics are partial — only the fields you provide are changed. Common: { complete: true } to mark a track completed. Capsule rejects unknown keys; consult Capsule's docs for the full updatable set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "fields"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "fields"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / id
      Added value: +{
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / trackId
      Removed value: -{
-  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
-  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
-  "type": "integer"
-}
  3. Addedv1.7.0
  4. Removedv1.6.2
  5. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation. The description adds important behavioral context by clarifying Capsule's PUT semantics are partial, meaning only provided fields are changed. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent avoid assuming full replacement semantics.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the key partial-update behavior, and finishes with a practical example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter update tool with annotations present, the description covers the essential behavior and provides a concrete example. It lacks explicit return-value or error information, but the low complexity and schema details make it sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The description meaningfully discusses the 'fields' parameter with partial-update semantics and a common usage example, but it does not clarify the 'id' parameter beyond the name. Schema coverage is only 50%, so the missing id semantics are not fully compensated.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a track instance.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from related sibling tools like apply_track or remove_track, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

The description implies usage: you use this tool when you want to partially update an existing track instance. It provides a common example with { complete: true }, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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