Skip to main content
Glama

proofite

by com.proofite

Update a topic inbox

update_source
Idempotent

Change a topic inbox: rename it, change its description, raise or lower its priority in the briefing, set a per-inbox technicality level, temporarily exclude it from the briefing or pause it entirely.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name for the inbox
priorityNo1 marginal … 5 always first
is_activeNofalse = stop collecting entirely
source_idYesId from list_sources
descriptionNoThe inbox brief: what the reader expects from it and what to skip — the editor reads it at every briefing
technicalityNoOverride just for this inbox
include_in_digestNofalse = keep collecting but leave it out of the briefing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"What belongs in here — it also guides the editor"New value: +"The inbox brief: what the reader expects from it and what to skip — the editor reads it at every briefing"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral meaning beyond the annotations by distinguishing 'temporarily exclude from the briefing' from 'pause it entirely', which maps to include_in_digest versus is_active. Annotations already cover idempotence and non-destructiveness, and the description does not contradict them.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence lists all update capabilities with zero wasted words. Each clause contributes a distinct operation, making the description both compact and informative.

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?

The description covers all seven parameters' intent and works with the annotations to convey a safe, idempotent update operation. It could explicitly state that unspecified fields are left unchanged (partial update), but this is inferable from the schema's required list and is a minor gap.

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 each parameter already carries a meaningful description. The tool description adds a helpful operation-to-parameter mapping, but no new syntax or facts beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a topic inbox') and enumerates the concrete updates: rename, edit description, adjust priority, set technicality, exclude from briefing, or pause. This clearly separates it from create_source, delete_source, and get_source.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description specifies exactly which operations call for this tool (renaming, changing description, priority, technicality, briefing exclusion, pausing), giving an agent clear scenarios to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions like create_source/delete_source, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All proofite toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.

Resources