Skip to main content
Glama

iClips

by io.github.mcp-dir

iclips_pieces_write_update

Cria ou atualiza uma peça no catálogo do iClips, ou marca um item do checklist. Ações:

  • create: o data exige name (até 255 caracteres) e exatamente UM entre basedOnTemplateId e workflowJson. Opcionais: description, valorDecimal, valorSindraproCriacaoDecimal, valorSindraproAdaptacaoDecimal, valorSindraproFinalizacaoDecimal, valorTotalDecimal, exibirBool, digitalBool, isFlexible, briefingCliente, pecaCliente, idSindicato, tempoMedio, instrucao, checklistJson e categoriaIds (int[]). Devolve o id da peça nova em data.

  • update: exige piece_id; o data exige name, workflowJson e checklistJson (este endpoint SUBSTITUI os dois, então leia a peça antes com iclips_pieces action=get).

  • checklist: exige piece_id e data {itemId, done}. Marca um item do checklist de produção como concluído (true) ou pendente (false). Use iclips_workflow_templates para descobrir o basedOnTemplateId e iclips_piece_categories para os categoriaIds.

[Flattened action: update]

Bulk support: accepts piece_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
accountNo
piece_idNo
piece_idsNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: update SUBSTITUI workflowJson and checklistJson, so the agent must read the piece first. It also mentions bulk support via piece_ids. No contradiction with annotations, and the destructive replacement semantic is useful context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-organized by action, with the main purpose front-loaded and each sentence adding constraint or routing information. The bulk-support note and flattened-action marker are useful. It could be slightly cleaner by explaining the flattened-action notation, but overall it earns its length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity (three actions, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers most operational semantics and prerequisites. But it does not describe return values for update/checklist actions, leaves 'account' undocumented, and does not state how this tool relates to the dedicated create/checklist siblings. These gaps make it incomplete enough that an agent may still need to probe or guess.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates well by explaining the data field's internal structure, required vs optional fields, field constraints (name ≤ 255 chars, exactly one of basedOnTemplateId/workflowJson), and the meaning of piece_id and piece_ids. However, the 'account' parameter is never mentioned, and the description does not clarify that 'data' is a string in the schema while treating it as an object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates/updates an iClips piece or marks a checklist item, with explicit resources and verbs. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools iclips_pieces_write_create and iclips_pieces_write_checklist, and the '[Flattened action: update]' note adds ambiguity about whether all three actions are actually available here.

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 clear per-action requirements: create needs name plus exactly one of basedOnTemplateId/workflowJson; update requires piece_id and read-before-write because workflowJson/checklistJson are replaced; checklist requires piece_id and itemId/done. It also points to supporting tools for templates and categories. It stops short of explicitly stating when to use this tool instead of the create/checklist siblings, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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

All iClips toolsInspect
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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are near-duplicates, such as iclips_financial_entries_get/list, iclips_pieces_get/list, iclips_pieces_write_create/update/checklist, and iclips_workflow_templates_get/list, all sharing essentially the same description. authenticate and connect also overlap on session/connection status, so an agent must rely on brittle naming conventions rather than clear semantic boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

The iClips tools mostly follow iclips_<resource>_<action>, but the server mixes noun-only names like iclips_financial_accounts and marketplace, camelCase platform names like toolkit_info and show_version, and artificial get/list flattened duplicates. The pattern is only predictable within a subset of the tool list, not across the entire server.

Tool Count2/5

At 30 tools, the set is over-inflated for its actual scope: most are flattened get/list or write-action variants of roughly a dozen underlying iClips operations, plus six unrelated platform utilities. The domain could be cleanly served in about half this many tools without losing functionality.

Completeness2/5

Jobs and pieces have reasonable CRUD coverage, but there is no client/group or destination master lookup even though clientId is required to create a job and destination_id filters financial entries. Job pieces and tasks also lack delete operations, and financial categories are not enumerable, leaving noticeable dead ends for common workflows.

Resources