Skip to main content
Glama

edit_document

Destructive

Edit an existing ProductNow document. This is the only tool that changes a document's content. It does not apply your edit directly: it hands message to the document's own editing agent, which reads the document and makes the change. Write message as instructions to that agent, not as the new document text. Name the section, say exactly what to add, replace, or remove, and quote text verbatim when the wording must be preserved. Include everything the agent needs, since it cannot see this conversation and will not ask follow-up questions. Returns before the edit finishes; poll get_status until status is idle (it stays running while any edit you sent is queued or in progress), then read the document to confirm the result. Do not use create_document — that creates a new document. Do not use rename — that only changes a name. Do not use reply_to_thread — that only adds discussion and never changes content.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesInstructions for the document's editing agent. Name the section and the change, and include any context the agent needs (e.g., 'In Executive Summary, replace the second paragraph with: …').
documentIdYesThe ID of the document to edit. Resolve it with search or fetch first.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag destructive/not-readOnly; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the async delegation model (hands `message` to the document's own editing agent), that it returns before the edit finishes, that get_status stays 'running' while edits are queued, and that the agent cannot see the conversation or ask follow-ups.

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?

Long but dense with no filler: identity, mechanism, message-authoring rules, async/polling contract, and sibling exclusions are all front-loaded in logical order. Each sentence carries unique operational information.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description supplies the async lifecycle and confirmation procedure an agent critically needs, plus the boundary against three write-capable siblings. Nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: `message` must be written as instructions to the editing agent, not as replacement document text, with guidance to name sections and quote verbatim. This reframes how the parameter must be authored rather than restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit an existing ProductNow document') and immediately establishes unique positioning: 'the only tool that changes a document's content.' An agent can distinguish it from all siblings on that basis alone.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use (content changes) plus three named exclusions with reasons: create_document creates new, rename changes only a name, reply_to_thread never changes content. It also prescribes the post-call workflow (poll get_status until idle, then re-read).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.