Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP-Kanka

MCP-Kanka

by twistymaze
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_entities

Update one or more entities in a Kanka campaign by specifying entity IDs and names, with optional markdown content, tags, and visibility settings.

Instructions

Update one or more entities

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": {
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "update_entities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
updatesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose permissions needed, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, error handling, or what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), making it inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Update one or more entities', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 1 parameter but nested array structure), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, such as input format, behavioral traits, or output expectations.

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

Parameters1/5

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 but adds no parameter information. It does not explain the 'updates' array structure, required fields like 'name', or the meaning of parameters such as 'entry' or 'is_hidden', leaving all semantics undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update one or more entities' restates the tool name 'update_entities' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'entities' but lacks detail on what entities are or what aspects are updated, failing to distinguish from siblings like 'update_posts' or 'check_entity_updates'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'update_entities' over 'update_posts' or 'check_entity_updates', leaving usage ambiguous.

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