Garden Design MCP Server

update_zone

Edits an existing garden zone's geometry (polygon/path or rectangle), type, label, notes, rotation, elevation, or lock state; returns area, width, overlap, and overflow checks.

Instructions

Update an existing zone. Reshape it with polygon or path (absolute, metres) or with x/y/width/height/points; lock or unlock it with locked. Returns checks for the updated zone (area, narrowest width, overlaps, parcel overflow).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_zone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`x`	No	Rectangle centre X (metres by default)
`y`	No	Rectangle centre Y (metres by default)
`id`	Yes	Zone ID to update
`path`	No	Corridor along a centreline: absolute waypoints (metres) and corridor width. Replaces x/y/width/height/points.
`label`	No	New label
`notes`	No	Updated design notes
`width`	No	Rectangle width (plan size, not height)
`height`	No	Rectangle depth on the plan (NOT vertical height — that is `elevation`)
`locked`	No	Lock (true) or unlock (false) the zone
`points`	No	With x/y: polygon vertices as offsets from (x, y). Prefer `polygon` (absolute) instead.
`polygon`	No	Absolute polygon vertices in metres (garden coordinates). Replaces x/y/width/height/points.
`rotation`	No	New rotation in degrees
`zoneType`	No	New zone type
`elevation`	No	New vertical height in metres

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.9.3Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. It does add real value by disclosing the return payload (area, narrowest width, overlaps, parcel overflow checks) and the fact that polygon/path supersede the x/y/width/height/points set. However, it never states partial-update semantics — whether omitted fields like label or zoneType are preserved or cleared — nor any permission or reversibility information, which matters for a mutation on a 14-parameter schema.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the operation is front-loaded before the reshaping options and the return value. Nothing is repeated or padded despite the schema's complexity.

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?

For a 14-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two hardest things an agent needs: which parameters conflict (polygon/path vs. rectangle/points) and what comes back (checks). The remaining gap is update semantics for the non-geometric fields, which the schema documents individually but the description never frames as a whole.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces units (absolute, metres) and the shape-mode exclusivity at the top level, but adds no syntax or constraint detail the schema does not already contain.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing zone") and immediately names the two reshaping modes plus the lock toggle, so an agent can tell this apart from add_zone/delete_zone/update_object. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings by name, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Usage is implied by enumerating the operations the tool supports (reshape via polygon/path, lock via `locked`), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (does the zone need to be unlocked first?), and no routing to alternatives such as add_zone or update_objects.

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

Deploy Server