Unitpost

Sms topics · update

sms_topics_update

Destructive

Update an SMS topic, or archive/restore it via { archived }.

Scope: topics:write.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "sms_topics_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	SMS topic id (`top_…`).
`body`	Yes	`{ name }`, `{ description }`, `{ default_opt_in }`, or `{ archived: true\|false }`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`hint`	No
`status`	No
`warning`	No
`request_id`	No
`retry_after_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context in the `topics:write` scope requirement and the archive/restore semantics, but says nothing about partial-update behavior (whether omitted fields are preserved) or whether archive is reversible — a meaningful gap for a non-idempotent mutation.

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?

Two tight sentences: the primary action first, the archive/restore exception second, the permission scope last. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With only 2 fully-documented params, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials plus the auth scope. The one notable omission is what happens to unspecified fields on update, which matters given idempotentHint=false, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the body schema already enumerates `{ name }`, `{ description }`, `{ default_opt_in }`, and `{ archived: true|false }`. The description's mention of `{ archived }` merely repeats the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate — no added syntax or format detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an SMS topic') and explicitly notes that archive/restore is done through this same tool via `{ archived }`, which distinguishes it from the sibling sms_topics_delete. It stops short of naming siblings or stating what it does not cover, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to reach for this tool (field updates, or archive/restore) and the `topics:write` scope hints at a prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing to sms_topics_delete / sms_topics_create, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

All Unitpost 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?