Mark

Update Source

update_source

Idempotent

Edits a pasted note (a source with type note) on the Claims & sources page: its title, text (body) or link. Pass id and only the fields that change. Claims quote a note's text, so a body edit is refused when a claim citing the note, active or retired, quotes text the new body no longer contains. The error names those quotes; revise those claims with save_claim first, or keep the text. Line breaks, case and curly quotes are ignored, as in save_claim. Other source types are refused: a drive_doc syncs from Google Drive and is edited there. Related: list_claims, delete_source, save_claim.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The note's id from list_claims.
`url`	No	A new link to the original, or null to remove it.
`body`	No	The full new text. It replaces the old text.
`title`	No	A new title.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appUrl`	Yes
`source`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency, yet the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the claim-quote validation gate on body edits, that the error names the offending quotes, that line breaks/case/curly quotes are normalized (matching save_claim), and that non-note sources are rejected. These are exactly the runtime surprises an agent needs to anticipate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and the update contract are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (refusal rule, error behavior, normalization, sibling cross-references). The refusal paragraph is dense, but nothing is redundant or 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 annotations, a full input schema and an output schema already present, the remaining burden is failure modes and cross-tool routing — both covered in detail (quote-conflict refusals, source-type refusals, save_claim remediation). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or know when not to.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds the partial-update contract ('only the fields that change') and the semantic constraint that body replaces the old text wholesale and is validated against citing claims. That is real meaning beyond the schema, though id/url/title get no further clarification.

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 names a specific verb (edits) and resource (a pasted note / source with type note), enumerates the editable fields (title, body, link), and explicitly scopes out the neighboring source types ('a drive_doc syncs from Google Drive and is edited there'). An agent can distinguish it from add_source, delete_source and save_claim without opening any schema.

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 an explicit invocation rule ('Pass id and only the fields that change'), states concrete when-not conditions (body edits are refused when a citing claim's quoted text would no longer be present; other source types are refused), and routes the agent to the alternative tool ('revise those claims with save_claim first, or keep the text'). Nothing about when to pick this tool is left to inference.

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

All Mark 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?