Conecto

Update the design

help_center_update_design

Change the DRAFT design: theme fields (groups merge field by field), whole pages (each page’s full ordered list of sections), your CSS (replaces the previous stylesheet), the help center’s words, or its language. Invalid values are left as they were and named in warnings. Nothing is live until help_center_publish. Costs $0.001 per call; nothing if it fails.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "help_center_update_design"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`css`	No
`rev`	No	The draft revision you last read (from any tool that returns `rev`). If the draft changed since, nothing is saved and you get the current revision to re-read.
`pages`	No	Page -> full list of sections ({id?, type, props, style}). Keep a section’s id to keep it. For one change, help_center_edit_sections is simpler.
`theme`	No	e.g. {"colors": {"accent": "#ff5500"}, "fonts": {"heading": "Fraunces"}}
`labels`	No
`language`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial information beyond the annotations: replacement semantics for CSS, field-by-field merge for theme groups, full-list replacement for pages, partial-success behavior ("invalid values are left as they were and named in `warnings`"), the draft-only/non-live guarantee, and per-call cost with failure refund. The replacement semantics are a mild tension with destructiveHint=false, but the draft-plus-publish model makes the annotation defensible rather than contradicted.

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 dense sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the resource and scope. Each clause (merge behavior, replacement semantics, warnings, publish gate, cost) carries distinct operational value.

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 6-parameter nested mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: mutation scope, failure handling via warnings, and cost. What is missing is any statement of what the call returns on success (a new rev, warnings empty), leaving the agent to infer the response shape.

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?

With only 50% schema coverage, the description compensates well: it explains that theme is merged per field, that pages require a complete ordered list, that css overwrites the prior stylesheet, and that "the help center's words" maps to labels. The `rev` concurrency parameter is left entirely to the schema, and `language` gets no description treatment, so it falls short of fully closing the gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (Change) and a precisely scoped resource (the DRAFT design), then enumerates the five editable surfaces: theme, pages, CSS, labels/words, and language. An agent can distinguish this from help_center_publish, help_center_get_design, and help_center_edit_sections without opening any 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?

"Nothing is live until help_center_publish" and "Costs $0.001 per call" give clear context for when this tool sits in the workflow. It does not explicitly route to the simpler alternative for single-section changes in the description body — that hint lives only in the pages sub-schema — and there is no explicit 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 Conecto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?