Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penpot MCP Server

Penpot MCP Server

by zcube
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_team

Update a team's name in Penpot by providing the team ID and the new name. This changes the team name to the specified value, keeping team information current.

Instructions

Update team information (name)

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_team"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNew team name
teamIdYesTeam ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Update team information (name)'. It does not mention idempotency, auth requirements, potential errors, or whether the update is a partial or full replacement. This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though it is so brief that it borders on under-specification.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry full contextual weight. It fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated team object, success message), error conditions, or any side effects. Given the sibling list includes many related team operations, more context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both 'teamId' and 'name', so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical '(name)' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'New team name' field description, so there is no additional value.

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?

The description uses a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('team information'), and the parenthetical '(name)' specifies the exact field being updated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_team, get_team, and delete_team, though it is somewhat terse.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 such as create_team or update_team_member_role. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and schema.

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