Use this when the user wants to rename or recolor one of their contexts. The id never changes, so cards keep their assignment. Do not use to change which context a card carries — use update_card.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | New hex color, e.g. '#4f9466'. | |
| label | No | New label, e.g. '@office'. | |
| contextId | Yes | The context id, from list_contexts. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / color / descriptionPrevious value: -"New hex color like #4f9466."New value: +"New hex color, e.g. '#4f9466'."Input schema / properties / contextId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The context id (from list_contexts)."New value: +"The context id, from list_contexts."Input schema / properties / label / descriptionPrevious value: -"New label."New value: +"New label, e.g. '@office'."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the id never changes, so cards keep their assignment. This explains an important invariant beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary use case is front-loaded, followed by a key behavioral invariant and a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with only three parameters, full schema coverage, and helpful annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, and an important side effect, and no output schema is expected for this update operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds only the label/color mapping implicitly through 'rename or recolor,' which is mild added value but not a significant enhancement over the schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'rename or recolor one of their contexts.' It clearly distinguishes itself from update_card, which changes a card's context assignment rather than the context's own label/color.
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?
It explicitly says when to use the tool ('when the user wants to rename or recolor one of their contexts') and gives an explicit exclusion: 'Do not use to change which context a card carries — use update_card.' This leaves no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.
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.