Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Gumloop MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Attach or detach agent skills

update_agent_skills
Destructive

Attach or detach specific skills on an agent using deltas, leaving unmentioned skills unchanged. Idempotent updates report already-attached or already-detached skills instead of failing.

Instructions

Attach and/or detach skills on an agent using deltas. This is not a replace-list: skills you don't mention are left untouched.

  • The operation is idempotent. Re-attaching a skill that's already attached (or detaching one that isn't) is reported under already_attached / already_detached rather than failing.

  • A skill ID may not appear in both attach and detach.

  • Up to 100 unique skill IDs total (attach + detach) per request.

  • Attaching requires INVOKE permission on the skill. Detaching is permissive so stale attachments can always be removed. Explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation. Runs can spend credits or trigger downstream actions; never resubmit unknown outcomes automatically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attachNoSkill IDs to attach. Ignored if already attached.
detachNoSkill IDs to detach. Ignored if not attached.
accountNoNamed private Gumloop account; selects private credentials and user/team identity.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete JSON request body instead of body flags. Preserves current endpoint fields and values.
agent_idYesID of the agent whose skills to update. Also accepts the reserved aliases `gumball` and `analytics`.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for this exact requested account change, agent/flow execution, upload or deletion."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description asserts 'The operation is idempotent,' but the annotations declare idempotentHint: false. This is a direct conflict on a named behavioral trait, so per the rubric the description contradicts the annotations. The otherwise-rich content (already_attached/already_detached reporting, permission asymmetry, credit/downstream warning) cannot offset a claim that contradicts the declared hint.

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-loads the core delta semantics in the first sentence, then uses tight bullets for the edge cases and constraints. The closing confirmation/credit paragraph partially duplicates the `confirm` parameter description, which is the only real 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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does so by naming the already_attached/already_detached reporting fields, plus permission, limit, and confirmation requirements. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. invalid skill IDs, missing INVOKE permission) or the account/payload alternates, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 genuine semantics beyond the schema: that attach/detach are deltas rather than a replacement list, that an ID may not appear in both, and that the combined total is capped at 100. It says little about account/confirm/payload/payload_file, keeping it below 5.

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 pair (attach/detach) and resource (skills on an agent), and explicitly disambiguates from a replace-list semantics. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like attach_agent_mcp_server or update_agent 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operating context: delta semantics, mutual-exclusion rule, the 100-ID cap, permission requirements for attach vs detach, and the explicit-confirmation prerequisite. It stops short of naming an alternative tool (e.g. why to use this rather than update_agent or attach_agent_mcp_server), so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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