Garden Design MCP Server

update_objects

Apply changes to multiple garden objects in one call, including position, size, label, rotation, elevation, and product swaps by ID or name search; returns per-object results.

Instructions

Update multiple garden objects in a single call. Returns array of results. Each item can swap its product with productId or productQuery, as in update_object.

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": {
      "objects": "<objects>"
    },
    "name": "update_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`objects`	Yes	Array of update specs, each must include 'id'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.9.3Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the return value is an array of results, but it says nothing about partial-failure semantics, whether one bad id aborts the whole batch, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or what permissions are required for mutation.

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 with the batch scope front-loaded and no wasted wording. The delegation phrase 'as in update_object' is compact but slightly opaque on its own.

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?

For a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks atomicity/error-shape information and any caution about invalid ids in the array. The core description is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a destructive write path.

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%, and the per-field docs (productId vs productQuery, units, ground-only elevation) are thorough, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that product swapping behaves 'as in update_object', which is a pointer rather than new meaning.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource plus the batch scope: 'Update multiple garden objects in a single call'. The word 'multiple' implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling update_object, but the distinction is left to inference rather than called out directly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer update_object for a single object or add_objects for creation. Usage is only implied by the batch framing.

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

Deploy Server