update_projectUpdate a project's name and/or sort order.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New project name; omit to keep it. | |
| order | No | New sort position; omit to keep it. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project id (uuid). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that by indicating a mutation. It adds partial-update context ('name and/or sort order' implies other fields are untouched), but it does not disclose reversibility, permissions, or downstream effects. Given annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.
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?
For a simple three-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations carrying the destructive hint, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is lack of sibling differentiation guidance, but the resource name and scope make correct invocation straightforward.
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?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and defaults, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description mainly paraphrases the 'order' parameter as 'sort order' and adds little meaning beyond the schema.
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 the explicit verb 'Update' with the resource 'project' and the exact scope ('name and/or sort order'). This distinguishes it from sibling update_* tools like update_board or update_document by naming the target resource, rather than merely restating the title.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. With many update_* siblings present, the agent gets no explicit routing signal beyond the resource name in the tool itself.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.