mcp

Update project frontend

updateFrontend

Destructive

Update one or more frontend settings of an existing Bootify project. Background information: https://bootify.io/docs/frontend-settings.html

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "updateFrontend"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`buildTool`	No
`framework`	No
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID returned by startProject
`htmxEnabled`	No	Used only with Thymeleaf and JTE
`cssFramework`	No
`typescriptEnabled`	No	Used only with Vite or Webpack for Thymeleaf and JTE

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`changes`	Yes	Only settings whose values actually changed, including automatic effects, using final stored values in MCP format. Nested objects contain changed properties only. Empty when no settings changed; values that are no longer exposed are omitted.
`projectId`	Yes	The project ID returned by startProject
`affectedAreas`	Yes	Object lists changed directly or by automatic effects. Lists are not returned; use getProject with these details when needed. Empty for no list changes.
`userProjectChanged`	No	Present only once when the project appears to have been changed by the user since the preceding MCP call within the last two hours

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / affectedAreas / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "APP_MODULES",
-  "ENUMS",
-  "DATA_OBJECTS",
-  "ENTITIES",
-  "RELATIONS",
-  "INDEXES",
-  "REST_CONTROLLERS",
-  "FRONTEND_CONTROLLERS",
-  "SECURITY_CONFIGS"
-]New value: +[
+  "APP_MODULES",
+  "ENUMS",
+  "DATA_OBJECTS",
+  "ENTITIES",
+  "RELATIONS",
+  "INDEXES",
+  "BREAKPOINTS",
+  "REST_CONTROLLERS",
+  "FRONTEND_CONTROLLERS",
+  "SECURITY_CONFIGS"
+]

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the update is partial ('one or more frontend settings') and points to documentation, which is useful context, but it does not explain what a destructive update to settings actually overwrites.

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?

Two tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the documentation link appended. No wasted wording, though the link is the only additional content beyond the first sentence.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a six-parameter mutation with only 50% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description leaves real gaps for an agent.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%: projectId, htmxEnabled, and typescriptEnabled are documented in the schema, while buildTool, framework, and cssFramework rely on enums alone. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it fails to compensate for the gap.

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?

Specific verb ('Update') and resource ('frontend settings of an existing Bootify project') are stated clearly. It is distinguishable from updateFrontendController and updateSettings by the 'frontend settings' scope, but it never explicitly names or excludes those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description states the tool targets an 'existing' project (implying projectId is required) but offers no when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives like updateSettings or updateFrontendController.

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

All mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?