splitters.update_page_rangeUpdate a fixed page-range splitter draft using its current draft revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| config | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| splitter_id | Yes | ||
| project_slug | No | Slug of an owned project. Optional only when the account has exactly one visible project; required for accounts with multiple visible projects. | |
| expected_draft_revision | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| splitter | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / project_slug / descriptionAdded value: +"Slug of an owned project. Optional only when the account has exactly one visible project; required for accounts with multiple visible projects."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral nugget: the update is bound to the 'current draft revision', implying optimistic-concurrency semantics around expected_draft_revision. It still omits what the update destroys (prior draft config) and any published-state constraints.
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?
A single tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-specified, but structurally it is clean.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 6-parameter tool with a deep nested config object and destructive semantics, the description leaves the agent without the field-level or workflow context needed to call it correctly.
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 only 17%, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: name, config (nested sections/page_spans/policies), description, and splitter_id are never mentioned. Only expected_draft_revision is semantically touched on via 'current draft revision'.
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 (Update) and a specific resource (fixed page-range splitter draft), which distinguishes it from the logical-splitter sibling splitters.update_logical. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling or explain the contrast beyond the wording.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to edit a draft vs. splitters.create_page_range, splitters.publish, or splitters.update_logical, nor any prerequisite about the splitter needing to be an existing draft. Usage must be inferred entirely.
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.