update_title_widgetUpdate a TITLE widget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Widget ID (from list_widgets). | |
| title | No | New title text. | |
| heading | No | New heading level. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The title widget as saved, with the update applied. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The title widget as saved, with the update applied.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). It does not state whether omitted optional parameters preserve current values, what happens if only id is provided, or any side effects. It is consistent with annotations but offers no extra transparency.
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?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. 'Update a TITLE widget.' repeats the title with no added value; every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not.
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?
Given the tool's simple but updateable fields (title, heading) and the existence of many sibling widget-update tools, the description is too thin. It does not clarify scope, optionality, or relationship to get_widget/list_widgets, leaving the agent without sufficient context to invoke it appropriately.
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%, so the input schema already documents id, title, and heading with descriptions. The description itself does not mention any parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic weight and the description adds nothing beyond it.
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 'Update a TITLE widget.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, providing no additional information about what updating a title widget entails or how it differs from sibling update_*_widget tools. It lacks a specific outcome or scope beyond the tautology.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_text_widget or other widget updaters. The description does not mention that this tool is for modifying title text/heading level on an existing title widget, nor any preconditions such as obtaining the widget ID via list_widgets (though that appears in the schema).
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.