update_image_widgetUpdate an IMAGE widget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| link | No | New click-through URL. | |
| link_url | No | New image source URL — use list_media to find an uploaded image. | |
| image_fit | No | New CSS object-fit class. | |
| widget_id | Yes | Widget ID (from list_widgets). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The image widget as saved, with the update applied. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / widget_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Widget ID (from list_widgets).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id"
-]New value: +[
+ "widget_id"
+]Output schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / properties / success / descriptionPrevious value: -"True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead."New value: +"True when the call succeeded."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'update' action is consistent but adds no extra behavioral context. It does not mention partial updates, side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields—information that would be valuable for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it essentially restates the tool name ('Update an IMAGE widget.') and does not earn its place by adding new information. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative within the same length.
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 moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required), full schema documentation, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It lacks guidance on edge cases, prerequisites (e.g., widget must exist), or typical usage flows, but these are not critical given the schema covers parameter origins.
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%, with each parameter (link, link_url, image_fit, widget_id) having a clear description. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, but since the schema already documents them thoroughly, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Update') and a clearly scoped resource ('an IMAGE widget'), which distinguishes it from sibling update_*_widget tools by resource type. It is not a tautology because it names the exact widget kind, though it does not enumerate capabilities.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling update_*_widget tools (e.g., update_button_widget, update_data_widget). It does not mention prerequisites, selection criteria, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from 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.