FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

update_post

Idempotent

Update an existing CMS post (any post type). Only provided fields are changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`meta`	No	Custom field values; merged shallowly with existing meta. Use this for structured data, not excerpt.
`slug`	No	URL slug (must be unique per company+type).
`type`	No	Change post type (e.g. blog_post → treatment). Slug is re-checked for uniqueness under the new type.
`title`	No	Post title
`blocks`	No	Replaces the entire ordered block array. Use append_post_block / replace_post_block / remove_post_block / reorder_post_blocks for per-block edits. Each block: { id, version, type, data }. Types: paragraph, heading, image, list, quote, code, divider, spacer, embed, html, youtube, file, faq, callout, gallery, cta, accordion, product, columns.
`postId`	Yes	The post ID
`status`	No	Post status
`tagIds`	No	Tag IDs to sync (replaces existing tags)
`excerpt`	No	Plain-text summary only — never JSON. Omit to leave unchanged.
`parentId`	No	Parent post ID for nested types.
`seoTitle`	No	SEO title override
`sortOrder`	No	Sort order (lower = earlier)
`visibility`	No	Visibility
`categoryIds`	No	Category IDs
`publishedAt`	No	Publish timestamp (ISO 8601)
`featuredImage`	No	Cover image URL
`seoDescription`	No	SEO description override

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
`summary`	Yes	One-line human-readable summary of the action
`renderType`	Yes	UI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., status changes triggering actions) or auth requirements.

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 description is a single sentence, extremely concise. It front-loads the key purpose and partial-update behavior. However, it could be longer to include usage guidance without being verbose.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (17 parameters, nested blocks, many siblings), the description is minimal. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or implications of changing fields like status. The schema descriptions are thorough, but the tool description should provide high-level completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 17 parameters, including nested block definitions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing CMS post (any post type)', and adds the critical partial-update behavior with 'Only provided fields are changed.' This distinguishes it from create_post and block-specific editing tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., per-block editing tools like append_post_block). It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The schema notes on blocks reference sibling tools, but the main description lacks this context.

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

All FavCRM 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 and action, with clear descriptions that minimize ambiguity. Even related tools like create_post vs create_post_type are well-separated by their targets.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_account, list_services, update_post), with no mixing of naming conventions. The pattern is predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count1/5

190 tools is excessively large for any server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 tool range. The sheer volume overwhelms agents and suggests poor scoping, even for a comprehensive CRM platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers CRUD operations across many domains (CRM, bookings, marketing, CMS, etc.), but notable gaps exist (e.g., no delete_account, delete_contact, update_booking). These are minor given the vast surface.

Resources

Need Help?