Rename or recolour a post tag. Posts keep the tag.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "update_tag"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Tag id (from list_tags) | |
| name | No | New name | |
| color | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces this by stating that existing post associations survive the rename. However, it omits what happens when only the required id is supplied with no name or color, whether a nonexistent id errors, and whether the response returns the updated tag.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the key consequence for existing data. Every word carries weight and there is no boilerplate.
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 small three-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers the core action and non-destructiveness. It is still thin on partial-update behavior and error/return expectations, which an agent would need before calling it confidently.
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 67% and the color property has only an enum list with no description; 'recolour' maps loosely to color and 'Rename' to name, adding a little meaning. The description does not explain the optional-field semantics implied by only id being required, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb pair (rename/recolour) and a specific resource (a post tag), which clearly separates it from create_tag, delete_tag, and tag_posts. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it replaces, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of create_tag or delete_tag as alternatives. The clause 'Posts keep the tag' is a behavioral note rather than a routing rule, so the agent must infer that this is the tool for editing an existing tag.
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.