branchly

update_data_source

Idempotent

Update a data source by its ID. Only provided fields will be updated (partial update). Returns the updated data source.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`type`	No	Must match the 'type' discriminator of the 'settings' object when both are provided.
`schedule`	No	Cron expression (e.g. '0 3 * * *') or null to disable scheduled re-sync.
`settings`	No	Type-specific config. Pass as an inline JSON object — do NOT serialize to a string. Must include a 'type' discriminator field: 'website_crawler', 'pdf_upload', 'open_api', 'helpspace', 'custom_webcrawler', or 'webhook'.
`data_source_id`	Yes
`integration_id`	No	Integration UUID for connected data sources (e.g. WordPress). Required when updating a WordPress data source.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that only provided fields are updated and that the updated data source is returned. Since idempotentHint and destructiveHint already cover the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The operation, resource, identifier, update semantics, and return value are all front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with a very large settings oneOf and six parameters, the description is adequate but thin. It correctly identifies the call shape and relies on the input and output schemas for type-specific constraints and return structure, but it could have noted the type/settings coupling or the WordPress integration_id requirement explicitly.

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?

The description adds generic meaning by clarifying that omission preserves existing fields and by identifying the ID parameter. However, schema coverage is 67%, and the description does not compensate for the remaining gaps, such as the type/settings discriminator constraint or integration_id requirement; those are left to the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('data source'), the lookup key ('by its ID'), and the partial-update behavior. It is readily distinguishable from sibling update tools by naming the resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_data_sources or other update_* tools. The partial-update note is useful behavioral information, but it does not serve as usage-selection guidance.

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

All branchly tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or metric, and even the closely related analytics tools (e.g. get_top_languages vs get_top_locales, get_top_interaction_sources vs get_top_clicked_urls) are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions. There is no real overlap that would cause an agent to misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

The verb prefixes create_, get_, list_, read_, and update_ are used predictably, and there is no mixing of camelCase or other conventions. The main inconsistency is that read_sessions is actually a list operation while list_nodes is the equivalent pattern for nodes, and read_session_detail is the singular read.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this set is well beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and far above the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many of the get_top_* analytics endpoints are individually distinct but could likely be consolidated into fewer parameterized tools to reduce agent selection overhead.

Completeness3/5

The read and analytics side is comprehensive, but the management lifecycle has notable gaps: knowledge nodes support create/read/update but no delete, and data sources/tools lack create/delete operations. Agents can work around some gaps, but content deletion is a clear dead end for a knowledge-base management surface.

Resources

Need Help?