Cactal

Update an item

cms_items_update

Destructive

Patches an item; omitted fields are left untouched. Keys in data are merged into the existing values and validated the same way as on create, while each key provided in references, images, or files replaces that field’s value wholesale — pass null (or [] for multi-valued fields) to clear an optional field. slug renames the item’s slug; slug and unique-field collisions fail with a conflict. Pass position: "first" or "last", or "before" / "after" together with anchorItemId, to move the item within the collection’s manual order — the default sort for item lists.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "cms_items_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`slug`	No	New slug for the item — a rename. Omit to keep the current slug. Must be unique among the collection’s active items.
`files`	No
`images`	No
`itemId`	Yes
`position`	No	Moves the item within the collection’s manual order — the default sort for item lists. Omit to leave the order unchanged. `"before"` / `"after"` require `anchorItemId`.
`references`	No
`anchorItemId`	No	Sibling item to move against when `position` is `"before"` or `"after"`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), it discloses the crucial asymmetry: `data` merges and re-validates like create, while `references`/`images`/`files` replace wholesale and must be nulled or emptied to clear. It also names the failure mode (slug/unique-field conflict) and the ordering side effect.

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?

Front-loaded with the single most important fact (patch/merge), and every sentence carries distinct information. However, it is one dense block covering merge semantics, clearing, conflicts and ordering; splitting into short clauses or bullets would make the three separate behaviors easier to scan.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, it covers the semantics an agent needs to call it safely. It does not mention permission/scope requirements, whether publish state is affected, or what a successful response contains (relevant given idempotentHint=false and retry safety).

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is only 38%, so the description carries the burden — and it does: it explains merge-vs-replace semantics for `data` versus the three object params, the null/[] clearing convention, `slug` as a rename with uniqueness constraints, and the `position`/`anchorItemId` pairing. Only nested asset shapes and maxItems caps are left to the schema.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ('Patches an item') and immediately qualifies scope with 'omitted fields are left untouched', which distinguishes it from a full-replace update or from cms_items_create. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: pass null/[] to clear optional fields, use position+anchorItemId to move within manual order, and expect conflict on slug/unique collisions. It never explicitly routes away to siblings (e.g. cms_items_create for new items, cms_items_delete for removal), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Cactal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?