Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

File Update

file_update

Append a new version to an existing shared file (version = prior max + 1).

If the file is published, the new version is eagerly mirrored to the Railway bucket. Old versions are never mutated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentNoOverride agent identity
contentYesNew file body (markdown, raw HTML, or teamshared.diagram/v1 JSON/YAML)
file_idYesFile UUID to update
content_formatNoOverride content format ('markdown', 'html', or 'diagram'); defaults to the file's current format

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Previous value: -"New file body (markdown or raw HTML)"New value: +"New file body (markdown, raw HTML, or teamshared.diagram/v1 JSON/YAML)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / content_format / description
      Previous value: -"Override content format ('markdown' or 'html'); defaults to the file's current format"New value: +"Override content format ('markdown', 'html', or 'diagram'); defaults to the file's current format"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the version numbering mechanism, the eager mirroring behavior when the file is published, and the guarantee that old versions are never mutated. This is far beyond a generic 'update' statement.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. The core operation and version rule are front-loaded, followed by the published-file mirroring behavior and immutability guarantee. Every sentence earns its place.

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 100% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers what the tool does, its versioning model, the published-file behavior, and what is never mutated. An agent can select and call this tool without needing further inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides for file_id, content, content_format, and agent. The versioning context is useful but does not enrich individual parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Append a new version to an existing shared file.' It also gives the versioning rule, 'ersion = prior max + 1,' and the non-destructive trait, 'Old versions are never mutated,' which clearly distinguishes it from file_create or file_version_delete.

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 clearly implies when to use it: updating an already-existing shared file by appending a version, including behavior for published files. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as file_create for new files or file_version_delete for deleting versions, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All TeamShared 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.

Resources