VarynForge

Update asset profile

update_asset_profile

Destructive

Correct the inferred profile of the project asset — description, primary offer, benefits, key differentiators, use cases. Use when get_project_asset shows claims that contradict what the operator actually sells (profileStaleAt set, or the operator says so). Only the fields you pass are written; arrays replace the whole list. No re-crawl happens. Clears the profileStaleAt flag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`context`	Yes	One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
`benefits`	No
`useCases`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`description`	No
`primaryOffer`	No
`keyDifferentiators`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "projectId"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "context"
+]

AddedAug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: only passed fields are written, arrays replace entire lists, no re-crawl occurs, and the profileStaleAt flag is cleared. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and partial-update semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, followed by trigger condition and side-effect notes. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a mutating update tool: it states when to use it, what fields it affects, how partial updates and arrays behave, and side effects on re-crawl and the stale flag. The destructive nature is already covered by annotations, and no output schema exists, so return details need not be explained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is low (14%), and the description compensates by listing the semantic fields (description, primary offer, benefits, key differentiators, use cases) and clarifying array replacement behavior. The context parameter is not explained in the description, but the schema does describe it, mitigating the gap.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Correct') and resource ('the inferred profile of the project asset'), enumerating the fields involved. It also distinguishes itself from related flows by explicitly noting 'No re-crawl happens,' which contrasts with resync_asset_profile.

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?

Description gives an explicit trigger: use when get_project_asset shows claims contradicting what the operator sells (profileStaleAt set or operator says so). It does not explicitly name resync_asset_profile as the alternative for a full re-crawl, but the 'No re-crawl happens' note implies that distinction.

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

All VarynForge tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions carefully cross-reference close alternatives (e.g., add_article_suggestion vs create_article_suggestion_with_input vs accept_idea). A few brief/read variants like get_article_brief, get_write_handoff, and download_brief_markdown could still be confused despite helpful explanations, so the set is not perfectly unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout: get_*, list_*, create_*, update_*, set_*, add_*, delete_*, start_*, expand_*, etc. Even the less common names like lint_draft and remap_asset are still clear verb_noun constructions.

Tool Count1/5

At 57 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ extreme threshold for a single MCP server. Even for a broad content workflow, the surface is overwhelming and would benefit from consolidation or splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full content lifecycle: project setup, research runs, opportunity clustering, suggestion creation, brief generation, drafting, linting, publishing, reporting, and account management. Minor gaps exist—destinations and projects cannot be deleted via MCP, and there is no direct update for article suggestion metadata—but these are workable via the web UI or existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?