update_entity_recordCompatibility tool that updates one record by ID. Executes directly for the authenticated app owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Fields to merge into the record | |
| app_id | Yes | The app ID | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name | |
| reason | No | Why this record should be updated | |
| record_id | Yes | Record ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / reasonAdded value: +{
+ "default": "",
+ "description": "Why this record should be updated",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds 'executes directly for the authenticated app owner,' giving authentication context, but says nothing about side effects, merge semantics, or irreversibility beyond what annotations imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the essential function. Every word earns its place; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description doesn't mention return value or error behavior. It doesn't cover when to use or what to expect post-call, but given the simple single-record update and schema coverage, it's not dangerously incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning for parameters like 'data' or 'reason', leaving the schema to do the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: updates one record by ID. Clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'update_entity_records' by specifying single record. The 'compatibility tool' prefix adds context without muddying the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like update_entity_records or update_entity_metadata. It doesn't explain why this compatibility tool exists or when it should be preferred over the plural variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there are some overlapping pairs like read_app_file/read_app_files and create_entity_records vs seed_entity, which could cause misselection. Singular/plural variants and compatibility tools introduce minor ambiguity, but the majority are well-separated.
Tool names predominantly follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_app, get_entities, delete_secret). There are some variations like 'agency_create_client' and 'seed_entity' that deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
With 82 tools, the server is far above the typical range and feels overwhelming. Even for a full platform API, the count is extreme and likely increases selection complexity. A more curated set would improve navigability without sacrificing capability.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering app lifecycle, file operations, entity CRUD, versioning, A/B testing, secrets, integrations, domains, agents, scheduling, policies, and member management. No obvious missing operations for the platform's scope; it even includes validation and workflow guidance tools.