dolphin-anty-mcp

Update a profile status

update_status

Rename a status or change its badge color by specifying the status ID. Optionally provide a new name or select a color from red, orange, purple, green, or blue.

Instructions

Rename a status or change its badge colour.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`color`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false). The description adds that it modifies the name and colour, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or behavior on invalid id. This is adequate given the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 simple update tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states what changes can be made. It could mention that 'id' is required or what happens if the status does not exist, but these are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping 'name' to 'rename' and 'color' to 'badge colour', which helps understand the intended use. However, it does not mention the required 'id' parameter or any constraints, but the schema provides types and enum.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Rename a status or change its badge colour.' This uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (status) and the attributes it modifies (name, badge colour). It distinguishes from siblings like list_statuses, create_status, and delete_statuses by specifying the update operation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to rename a status or change its badge colour. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is only for updating existing statuses.

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

Deploy Server