Pathrule

Pathrule Update Rule

pathrule_update_rule

Destructive

Update a rule's fields and/or path. Optimistic concurrency via expected_version_id. Cloud-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`patch`	Yes	Fields to change. Omitted fields are left as they are, so send only what actually differs.
`rule_id`	Yes	Rule UUID returned by pathrule_get_context, pathrule_goto, or pathrule_read_rule.
`move_to_path`	No	Optional workspace-relative destination path such as /packages/app. Missing nodes are created when allowed by the backend.
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace UUID from pathrule_list_workspaces.
`allow_duplicate`	No	Set true only when intentionally allowing another rule with the same name.
`expected_version_id`	No	Optional optimistic-concurrency token from the existing record. Pass it when available to avoid overwriting a newer edit.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	true when the call succeeded. false when it did not, in which case `error` carries the reason and the success fields are absent.
`data`	No	Updated rule: id, version_id, and the name it now carries.
`error`	No	Present only when ok is false.
`human_message`	No	One-line summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / patch / description

Added value: +"Fields to change. Omitted fields are left as they are, so send only what actually differs."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "Updated rule: id, version_id, and the name it now carries."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when ok is false.",
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "description": "Stable machine-readable failure code, for example insufficient_scope, workspace_id_required, rate_limited, not_found, or upstream_error. Branch on this, not on message text.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "detail": {
+          "description": "Optional structured context for the failure, for example { missing_scopes: [...] } on insufficient_scope."
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "description": "Human-readable explanation of the failure.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "code",
+        "message"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "human_message": {
+      "description": "One-line summary of the result, safe to relay to the user verbatim.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "true when the call succeeded. false when it did not, in which case `error` carries the reason and the success fields are absent.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral context: updates can touch fields and path, optimistic concurrency is supported via expected_version_id, and the tool is cloud-only. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences convey the core action, concurrency model, and deployment constraint with no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and destructive annotation, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the key behavioral aspects not fully represented in structured fields, though it could mention when to prefer this over write_rule for full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions such as the partial patch behavior and move_to_path semantics. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond naming expected_version_id, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the operation ('Update') and the resource ('a rule'), then narrows the scope to 'fields and/or path.' This distinguishes it from read, delete, and write-rule siblings without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use for modifying an existing rule and adds a 'Cloud-only' restriction, plus a hint to use expected_version_id for safe concurrent updates. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as pathrule_write_rule or describe when to prefer one over the other.

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

All Pathrule tools Inspect

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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by resource (memory/rule/skill/workspace/snapshot/refresh) and mostly have distinct output shapes, so agents can usually pick the right one. A few retrieval tools (get_context, get_node, get_tree, goto) overlap in purpose, but their descriptions clarify resolution mode vs full tree vs context bundle.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the pathrule_ prefix and mostly follow verb_noun, but the verbs are inconsistent: create_workspace vs write_memory, get_node vs read_memory, delete_skill vs remove_pattern, plus verb-only exceptions like goto, setup, and ping. The pattern is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy for a single server, even with a broad domain. Several context-retrieval tools and read/list variants could potentially be consolidated, though each tool does have a specific purpose.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD is covered for memories, rules, and skills, along with workspaces, snapshots, refresh tasks, and pattern import/removal. Minor gaps include no standalone list_rules/list_skills and no snapshot update/delete, but agents can work around these via get_context, goto, and get_tree.

Resources

Need Help?