DB Planner

Update listing

update_listing

Destructive

Edit a published listing's text: title, summary, description, category, tags. Takes a LISTING id from list_my_listings, not a project id. The public web address is fixed at first publish and does not follow a title change, so existing links keep working. Every field is replaced by what is sent, so send the ones being kept as well as the ones being changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Up to 8 short lowercase tags.
`title`	Yes	Listing title.
`summary`	No	One line saying what the schema is for.
`category`	No	Category slug from the categories list any browse_templates result carries.
`listingId`	Yes	Listing id (uuid), from list_my_listings.
`description`	No	Longer prose about the schema.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`slug`	Yes
`tags`	No
`title`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`summary`	No
`category`	Yes
`currency`	No
`createdAt`	No
`projectId`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`cloneCount`	No
`priceCents`	No
`tableCount`	No
`columnCount`	No
`description`	No
`publishedAt`	No
`purchaseCount`	No
`takedownReason`	No
`relationshipCount`	No

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / category / description

Previous value: -"Category slug from template_categories."New value: +"Category slug from the categories list any browse_templates result carries."

changedInput schema / properties / listingId / description

Previous value: -"Listing id (uuid), from my_listings."New value: +"Listing id (uuid), from list_my_listings."

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the public web address is fixed at first publish and does not follow title changes, and fields are replaced wholesale so unsent fields will be lost. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before calling.

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 sentences, each load-bearing: the first defines scope and fields, the second pins the identifier source, and the third conveys two critical replacement and URL behaviors. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential traps for invoking the tool correctly: the correct id source, the wholesale replacement behavior, and the stable public URL. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic value by warning that every field is replaced by what is sent and that the listing id must be a LISTING id, not a project id. This goes beyond the per-field schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit a published listing's text' and enumerates the exact fields involved: title, summary, description, category, tags. It also disambiguates the identifier by saying it takes a LISTING id from list_my_listings, 'not a project id,' which separates this tool from project-related siblings.

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?

It provides clear context: use this tool to edit a published listing's text, and the listing id must come from list_my_listings rather than a project id. It does not explicitly name publish_listing/unpublish_listing as alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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

All DB Planner 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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.

Resources

Need Help?