update_statusUpdate a change request status as it moves through the build and review flow.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Ticket code like "RB-3" (raw ids also work). | |
| status | Yes | New status: new, accepted, building, preview, approved, shipped, or rejected. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | Short ticket code. | |
| status | Yes | The status now set on the request. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Change request id."New value: +"Ticket code like \"RB-3\" (raw ids also work)."Output schema / properties / codeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Short ticket code.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Change request id.",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "status"
-]New value: +[
+ "code",
+ "status"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a write operation, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the notion of a 'flow' but does not disclose details about valid transitions or side effects. With annotations present, the description provides minimal but non-contradictory additional context.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the core action. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary detail or repetition of schema information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is sufficient. It could be improved by clarifying whether any status transition is allowed or if there are ordering constraints, but this is not a critical gap for basic usage.
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 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'status', including allowed values. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool updates a change request status, specifying the resource ('change request status') and the context ('build and review flow'). It distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling tools (get_change_request, list_change_requests) and from set_preview_url, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The phrase 'as it moves through the build and review flow' implies this tool is used for status transitions, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any preconditions or limitations.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getting details, listing, attaching a preview URL, and updating status. No overlapping functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_change_request, list_change_requests, set_preview_url, update_status).
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for managing change requests from discovery to review without unnecessary extras.
The tools cover the core lifecycle: listing, getting details, attaching preview, and updating status. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to create or delete change requests, but these may be handled externally.