gitbook_update_change_requestUpdate a change request's subject or status. Edits draft metadata only. GitBook REST: PATCH /spaces/{spaceId}/change-requests/{changeRequestId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | A new status for the change request. | |
| spaceId | Yes | The space id. | |
| subject | No | A new title/subject for the change request. | |
| changeRequestId | Yes | The change request id. |
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?
The annotation declares destructiveHint: true, and the description adds that it 'Edits draft metadata only', providing scope beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or response behavior, so transparency is moderate.
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 three short sentences, immediately stating the purpose, scope, and REST endpoint. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundant or promotional content.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should ideally explain return values. It doesn't mention what the response contains or potential errors. The REST path and draft metadata scope are helpful, but the missing return behavior and lack of response details leave the description slightly incomplete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description mentions 'subject or status' which aligns with schema but adds no additional semantics about allowed values or format beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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's subject or status, uses a specific REST endpoint, and distinguishes it from sibling create/list/get tools by focusing on the 'update' action and 'draft metadata only' scope.
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 implies usage for updating subject or status of a change request but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like create_change_request or list_change_requests. It gives a partial constraint ('draft metadata only') but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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 targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., get vs list vs search, change-request vs page vs space), so there is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a uniform gitbook_ prefix (e.g., gitbook_list_spaces, gitbook_get_page, gitbook_create_change_request). The naming is predictable and systematic.
14 tools is slightly high but still reasonable for a documentation platform API covering resources like spaces, pages, change requests, collections, organizations, and search. Each tool has a clear purpose, though the set feels a bit broad with several read-only operations.
The set is heavily read-focused and lacks essential write operations for pages and spaces (create, update, delete), which are core to GitBook's purpose. It does cover change-request lifecycle partially (create, list, update) but omits merge/delete and page editing, leaving noticeable gaps.