Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Gumloop MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update queued message

update_queued_message
Destructive

Replace content of a still-queued message before it runs; requires session ID, queued message ID, and explicit confirmation.

Instructions

Replace the content of a message that is still waiting in the session's queue. 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
inputNoThe new message content. Cannot be empty. Also accepted as `message` for backwards compatibility.
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.
session_idYesID of the session the queued message belongs to.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
queued_message_idYesID of the queued message to update.

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true/non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new context: an explicit confirmation requirement and the warning that runs can consume credits and trigger downstream actions. It stops short of describing what happens to the original content or any rate/error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The credit/downstream-action sentence is slightly generic boilerplate relative to a queue-content update, which keeps it from a 5.

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 plus a fully described 7-parameter schema cover the call adequately, including the confirmation gate for a destructive, non-idempotent write. Only the return/confirmation behavior on success is unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including the payload/body-flag mutual exclusion and the account selector. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that baseline.

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 and resource ('Replace the content of a message') plus a discriminating precondition ('still waiting in the session's queue'), which separates it from send_queued_message, delete_queued_message, and send_message without opening their schemas.

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 rules: explicit confirmation is required, and unknown outcomes must never be resubmitted automatically. It does not, however, name the sibling alternative to use when the message has already been sent or should be discarded instead.

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