Pane

Update Row

update_row

Idempotent

Update an existing row in a v2 app's collection, replacing its data. Gated by the collection's update role list when it declares one, and by its write list otherwise, so a collection that scopes updates to the row's creator refuses an edit on someone else's row. Pass if_match with the row's current version for an optimistic-locked update; on a version mismatch the relay returns the current row, which is what a retry needs. Returns { row }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	The key of the row to update.
`data`	Yes	The new row body (replaces the row's data) - any JSON value valid against the collection's row schema.
`app_id`	Yes	The app id.
`if_match`	No	Optional optimistic-lock version. On mismatch the update is rejected with the current row in details.current.
`collection`	Yes	The collection name.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: authorization behavior, optimistic locking details, and the outcome on version mismatch ('returns the current row, which is what a retry needs'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: definition, authorization, locking. No filler words, front-loads the core action. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Covers core behavior, authorization, and optimistic locking details. The success response is mentioned minimally as '{ row }', but without an output schema, this is acceptable. Minor lack of detail on other error conditions besides version mismatch, but overall sufficient for a moderate-complexity tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the if_match parameter's behavior ('on a version mismatch the relay returns the current row') and implicitly clarifying the collection parameter's role in authorization. Adds meaningful context.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing row in a v2 app's collection, replacing its data.' The verb 'update' and resource 'row' are specific, and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_row, get_row, and upsert_row.

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?

Provides clear context on authorization gating ('Gated by the collection's update role list') and optimistic locking with if_match. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus the sibling upsert_row, leaving a slight gap in usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Pane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: row operations (get/list/upsert/update/delete/restore) are clearly separated, while apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members, publisher, review, and taste each cover a different domain. Even closely related actions like share_link_rotate and domain_set have clearly scoped descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names use two patterns: noun-like names for resource areas (apps, attachments, community, grants, ingest, members) and verb_noun names for row operations (upsert_row, delete_row, etc.). This deviation is predictable and readable, but it is not perfectly uniform, so a slight deduction applies.

Tool Count4/5

With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of the platform (app lifecycle, data storage, attachments, community, reviews, feedback, identity) justifies the count. Each tool represents a meaningful feature area with multiple internal actions, so none feels redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for apps (create, read, update, delete), rows (create, read, update, delete, restore, list deleted), attachments, membership, grants, ingest, community, and reviews. Obvious gaps like rollback or version history are not core to the domain, and the presence of get_skill helps agents understand the workflow.

Resources

Need Help?