update_communityUpdate this community's name, locale or settings groups. Only the groups you pass are touched. defaults here (privacy mode, theme, interviewer) is what new projects inherit, so changing it changes future projects, not existing ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| general | No | ||
| rewards | No | ||
| defaults | No | ||
| icon_url | No | ||
| platforms | No | ||
| experience | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $defs / CommunityDefaultsUpdateGroup / properties / answer_style / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "buttons_full",
+ "buttons_emoji",
+ "select_menu"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / $defs / CommunityDefaultsUpdateGroup / properties / project_closing / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / $defs / CommunityRewardsUpdateGroup / properties / xp_completion_bonus / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / $defs / CommunityRewardsUpdateGroup / properties / xp_per_poll / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / $defs / CommunityRewardsUpdateGroup / properties / xp_per_question / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and the description corroborates with partial-update semantics (only passed groups touched) plus the non-obvious propagation rule for `defaults` (future projects only). It adds meaningful context beyond the hints but omits auth/permission requirements.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral fact with no filler. Efficient and well-ordered.
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?
For a tool with a deeply nested, optional-only argument tree and no output schema, the description covers the highest-value subtleties (partial updates, defaults propagation) but leaves most settings groups, permissions, and the response shape unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0% and there are 8 top-level params, several of them nested groups. The description only adds meaning for `name`, `locale`, and elaborates `defaults` (privacy mode, theme, interviewer); the general, rewards, platforms, experience, and icon_url groups are left unexplained, so compensation is well short of what's needed.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Update this community's name, locale or settings groups") that cleanly separates it from siblings like update_project, update_block, and update_webhook. It enumerates the updateable surface at a high level, though it does not name a sibling alternative to route against.
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?
"Only the groups you pass are touched" is real partial-update usage guidance, and the note that `defaults` affects future projects rather than existing ones tells the caller when the change takes effect. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing, keeping it short of a 5.
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.