Paperform

Update item

update

Idempotent

Change an item or record: changes holds only the fields to change. Fields are passed through as given and checked by the product, so read the item first and send the field names it reports; an unknown or malformed field comes back as an error naming it. Use move to change a folder, publish/unpublish to change live state.

By type: • form — title, description, custom_slug, translation_id. It is live for respondents. Confirm with the user before calling this. Fields, pages, logic, emails, PDFs, submission settings and theme change with edit_source; anything neither covers (integrations, payments setup, sharing) is changed in the Paperform editor (fetch returns its url). • workflow — only a rename: { name, v, version_id }, with v and version_id from its #source's metadata. Steps, triggers and rules change with edit_source on its #source, never here (a schema is refused). Writes the draft only; nothing changes live until publish. • product, coupon — price and stock changes apply from the next submission; say so to the user first. • form_webhook, document_webhook — repointing sends future data somewhere new. Confirm with the user before calling this.

Tool call template

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>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	An id exactly as search, list or fetch returned it. Ids are opaque — never build or edit one.
`changes`	Yes	The fields to change.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`record`	No
`updated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains partial-update semantics, pass-through validation, field-name errors, draft-only workflow writes, live form behavior, and webhook consequences. These are meaningful behavioral details that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core update behavior and then organized by item type. Despite its length, every section carries operational guidance needed for a multi-type update tool, and there is no obvious filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a rich output schema and detailed annotations already present, the description supplies the remaining caller-relevant context: partial updates, sibling alternatives, per-type constraints, confirmation requirements, and live/draft behavior. An agent has enough information to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: changes should contain only fields to change, should use field names reported by the item, are validated by the product, and vary by item type. It also names allowed update fields for forms and workflows.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Change an item or record'. It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings such as move, publish/unpublish, and edit_source, so an agent can identify its role without inspecting other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use move to change a folder, publish/unpublish to change live state, and edit_source for fields, pages, logic, and other structural changes. It also says when to confirm with the user for forms, webhook repointing, and product/coupon changes.

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

All Paperform tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?