branchly

update_tool

Idempotent

Update an existing tool by its ID. Fetches the current tool and applies partial updates to name, description, or active status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	snake_case tool name, max 64 characters. Used as the function name when the LLM calls the tool.
`active`	No
`tool_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`tool_config`	No	Function schema sent to the LLM. Pass as an inline JSON object — do NOT serialize to a string. Use 'FormAPISchema' for form tools or 'APIToolConfig' for API-calling tools. Pass null to clear.
`function_arguments`	No	Fixed runtime arguments NOT collected from the LLM (e.g. recipient email, rerank flag, knowledge-base ID). Pass as an inline JSON object — do NOT serialize to a string. Must include an 'object' discriminator field matching the tool type.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already set the safety profile (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond annotations: it fetches current state and merges partial updates, telling the agent that unspecified fields retain their prior values. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the action and resource; the second adds behavior and scope. Minor deduction because the scope list omits tool_config and function_arguments, which are major parts of the update surface.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with this schema complexity, the description significantly understates its update surface: it lists only name, description, or active status while omitting tool_config and function_arguments — the two most important fields for configuring an existing tool. The schema's own descriptions compensate for how to structure those fields, but an agent relying on the description would wrongly believe only basic fields can be updated.

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 maps three of the six parameters (name, description, active) to the partial-update semantics, adding meaning beyond their bare schema entries. With 50% schema description coverage, the complex tool_config and function_arguments parameters already carry detailed usage notes in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing tool by its ID') and names the updateable fields. Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_node, update_prompt, and create_node by targeting the tool resource specifically.

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 phrasing 'existing tool' and 'fetches the current tool' implies this is for modifying already-created tools, and the partial-update semantics contrast implicitly with create_node. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the sibling tools.

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?