Edit a resource. Only include fields you want to change. Set is_featured to surface it; set is_published=false to unlist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| price | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| file_url | No | ||
| folder_id | No | ||
| is_premium | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| is_featured | No | ||
| access_level | No | ||
| is_published | No | ||
| resource_url | No | ||
| resource_type | No | ||
| cover_image_url | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose partial-update behavior and the meaning of two flags. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as required permissions, idempotency, whether omitted fields remain unchanged, and error/return behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and object, and every sentence adds functional guidance. No filler or redundancy.
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 14 parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only partial updates and two flag behaviors. It lacks information on return values, authorization, validation rules, and the full set of editable fields, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains semantics for is_featured and is_published out of 14 parameters. The remaining parameters (title, price, tags, access_level, etc.) rely on names, types, and enums from the schema, which is insufficient for selecting and providing correct values.
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 opens with 'Edit a resource,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling update_* tools, but the resource focus plus sibling create/get/list_resource tools provide sufficient context.
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 description provides clear usage context: 'Only include fields you want to change' signals a partial-update pattern, and the guidance on is_featured and is_published gives concrete instructions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like create_resource.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action combination, and similar-looking tools are carefully differentiated in descriptions (e.g., get_course_structure vs list_course_modules, update_lesson vs update_lesson_content). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools use a consistent 'hivelearn_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with common verbs (get, list, create, update). The only minor deviation is 'add' vs 'create' (add_track_course vs create_track), but this is semantically appropriate and does not disrupt the overall pattern.
With 57 tools, the server is significantly over the recommended range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad domain (courses, community, analytics) justifies a large surface, this many tools makes selection overwhelming for agents and suggests a need for consolidation or sub-servers.
The tool surface covers create, read, and update for most core entities (courses, lessons, quizzes, tracks, posts, events, resources), plus publishing/verification and analytics. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for courses, lessons, modules, quizzes, posts, events, resources, or enrollments, and no way to remove a course from a track. These lifecycle holes are significant but not fatal for common workflows.
