JSONPad

Update a list

update_list

DestructiveIdempotent

Change a list's fields; fields left out are left as they are. A new schema doesn't re-check existing items, but applies to later writes and restores. New rules apply from the next write, and the stored tests must pass first; rules: null removes them. readonly: true blocks writes to the list, its items and its indexes. 1 request.

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": {
      "list": "<list>"
    },
    "name": "update_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`list`	Yes	The list: its id or pathName
`name`	No	The list's name
`tags`	No	Tags (at most 20). Replaces the existing tags
`rules`	No	Write rules, in the JSONPad rules language, checked on every item write made with an API token; null removes them. Check them first with the JSONPad docs server's check_write_rules
`pinned`	No
`schema`	No	A JSON schema every item's data must match, or null for none
`pathName`	No	A unique name to use in URLs instead of the id (letters, digits, - and _)
`readonly`	No	Refuse writes to the list, its items and indexes
`realtime`	No	Send realtime events for the list's changes
`activated`	No	Deactivated lists are invisible to tokens
`indexable`	No	Allow listing and searching its items with a token. A new list is not indexable unless this is set
`protected`	No	Refuse to delete the list while it has items
`rulesTests`	No	Tests the rules must pass before they're saved, or null for none
`description`	No	What the list is for

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`list`	Yes
`ruleWarnings`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations only declaring destructive/idempotent/read-write hints, the description adds real substance: partial-update semantics, that a new schema does not retro-validate existing items but governs later writes and restores, that new rules take effect from the next write only after stored tests pass, that rules:null removes them, and that readonly blocks writes to the list, its items, and indexes. All of this is consistent with destructiveHint=true (notably schema and rules changes).

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core semantics before the schema/rules/readonly caveats, and the trailing '1 request.' is a useful cost signal. It is cramped but nearly every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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 not be described. For a 14-parameter mutation tool the description covers the important behaviors an agent must know before calling: patching, schema scope, rules activation, and readonly. It stops short of stating what happens when the rules tests fail (error shape vs. silent rejection).

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 93%, so the schema already documents list, tags, rules, readonly, and the rest. The description's 'rules: null removes them' largely restates the schema's own null note, and its readonly note mirrors the schema wording. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 opening clause 'Change a list's fields; fields left out are left as they are' gives a specific verb, resource, and patch semantics, which cleanly separates it from update_item and update_index. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns that rules require the stored tests to pass first and that readonly:true blocks writes, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'prefer X instead' guidance across the 31 sibling tools. Conditioning behavior is present; routing advice is not.

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

All JSONPad 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?