VarynForge

Update niche

update_niche

Destructive

Update a niche profile — name, industry, language, country, target customer, core problem, related terms. Use after the operator refines their market definition; omitted fields keep their current values.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`context`	Yes	One sentence: what is the operator trying to achieve right now? Describe their goal, not this tool's purpose.
`country`	No
`industry`	No
`language`	No
`coreProblem`	No
`relatedTerms`	No
`targetCustomer`	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: -[
-  "id",
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "context"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedAug 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / coreProblem
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedAug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only, so the description doesn't need to re-state mutation. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'omitted fields keep their current values,' indicating a patch-style update rather than full replacement. This helps an agent understand the tool's safety profile without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then gives usage timing and partial-update semantics. Every sentence contributes actionable information for the agent.

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 destructive update tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what is updated, when to use it, and how omitted fields behave. It doesn't describe return values or explicitly warn about destructive consequences, but the annotations cover the destructive flag and the schema covers the required context parameter, so the description is reasonably complete.

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 only 11%, so the description carries significant responsibility for parameter meaning. It lists most field names and explains that omitted fields retain current values, which is useful. However, it does not describe the required 'context' parameter or add meaning to ambiguous fields beyond their names; it compensates only partially for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Update'), the resource ('niche profile'), and enumerates the exact fields involved (name, industry, language, country, target customer, core problem, related terms). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_asset_profile or update_article_status by naming the niche resource explicitly.

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 gives a clear trigger for use: 'Use after the operator refines their market definition.' It also clarifies partial-update behavior with 'omitted fields keep their current values.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?