Skip to main content
Glama

update_section

Destructive

Apply a single add, update, or delete change to a CvLAC section; the call takes a screenshot and asks confirmation for duplicates or deletions.

Instructions

Apply a single change to a CvLAC section. Takes a screenshot for confirmation. An "add" whose item resembles an existing entry returns status "needs_confirmation" and writes nothing; resolve it with action:"update" or repeat with confirm_duplicate:true. A "delete" also writes nothing until it is repeated with confirm_delete:true. A picker whose search matched several rows — a common university name can match close to 200 institutions in CvLAC — also returns needs_confirmation, with the candidates in "choices"; repeat with the chosen id in data.institucionId. For articles provide title, year and issn/revista; for books provide title, isbn, year, editorial and area; for chapters provide title, bookTitle, year and area; for theses provide title, tipo, year, institution and programme; for juries provide title, nivel, year, orientado, institution and programme; technical sections require title and year, with section-specific fields. Catalogue choices are answered by repeating the call with revistaId, libroId, editorialId, programaId, areaId or institucionId in data. Coauthors, keywords, recognitions and linked thesis students are completed from the CvLAC website. For books, certificateCLCDO and certificateCLRI accept local PDF paths (maximum 2 MiB each).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe item data to add/update
actionYes
sectionYes
confirm_deleteNoRequired by action:"delete". Without it nothing is removed and the call returns needs_confirmation — CvLAC has no undo.
confirm_duplicateNoCreate the item even though CvLAC already holds a similar one

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.6

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses the needs_confirmation contract for adds, deletes and ambiguous pickers, that nothing is written until confirmed, that up to ~200 institutions can match a picker, that choices come back in 'choices', and that coauthors/keywords must be completed on the website. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations (destructiveHint) cannot convey.

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 confirmation flows, then section payloads – a logical order. It is dense and runs long as a single block with some very long sentences, but essentially every clause adds actionable information, so little is wasted.

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, yet the description supplies the return contract (status 'needs_confirmation', 'choices'). Combined with the confirmation semantics and per-section payload rules for a 21-value section enum, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly without further probing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 60% and the key 'data' param is an unconstrained additionalProperties object, so the description carries real burden. It enumerates the per-section field requirements and the catalogue-id keys (revistaId, libroId, editorialId, programaId, areaId, institucionId) that the schema cannot express, plus the 2 MiB PDF constraint.

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 ('Apply a single change to a CvLAC section') and immediately scopes it with the screenshot confirmation behavior. An agent can tell this is the write/mutation tool versus the read siblings (read_cvlac, read_portfolio) and the higher-level sync/complete_product tools.

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?

Gives rich when-to-use detail for each action and section (add/update/delete, plus per-section required fields), and explains how to resolve confirmation states. It never names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use this tool (e.g., versus complete_product or sync), so it stops short of a 5.

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