Skip to main content
Glama
stornoro

Storno CLI

by stornoro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

dosare_update

Updates an existing case file with new title, status, deadline, notes, and optional client or supplier links using company identifiers.

Instructions

Update a dosar: title, subject fields (merged), status (active / attention / closed), nextStep, deadlineAt + deadlineLabel, notes, and the link to the other party as a client / supplier of the company (clientId / supplierId; null unlinks). The link is found by the tenant CUI/CNP automatically when a dosar is created; set it by hand when the client record has a different identifier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
notesNo
titleNo
statusNo
subjectNo
clientIdNo
nextStepNo
companyIdNoCompany UUID (overrides STORNO_COMPANY_ID env var)
deadlineAtNo
supplierIdNo
deadlineLabelNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.37

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

It discloses that null unlinks clientId/supplierId and explains automatic link resolution, but it does not describe partial update semantics, whether omitted fields remain unchanged, side effects of status changes, or error behavior. With no annotations, the description bears the full burden but only partially meets it.

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?

The description is concise and packs the key fields into a single readable sentence, with an additional clarifying sentence for linking behavior. It is slightly dense but not verbose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description omits companyId and does not clarify nested subject semantics or update behavior details. It is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for a complex update operation.

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?

The description explains most parameters, including the meaning of clientId/supplierId, status values, and the deadline fields. However, it omits companyId and does not clarify the 'subject fields (merged)' structure, so not all parameters are fully covered.

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 updates a dosar and enumerates the main editable fields. It is distinct from create/delete/list actions through the explicit 'Update' verb.

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?

It provides some usage guidance, especially around clientId/supplierId linking and the automatic CUI/CNP behavior, but does not explicitly contrast with dosare_create or dosare_delete or state when updating is preferred.

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