Teddit

Update a site

update_project

Destructive

Change an existing site’s settings: name, industry, brand terms, language, buyer location, or how often scheduled scans run. Fields left out keep their value. brandTerms replaces the whole list and re-reads every stored answer at once (free), so mentions under the new spellings count. Returns the updated project.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	A new brand name, as answers spell it.
`industry`	No	The industry in a few words.
`language`	No	The language the questions are asked in.
`location`	No	Where the buyer is, e.g. "Germany".
`projectId`	Yes	The project id, from list_projects.
`brandTerms`	No	Other spellings of the brand; replaces the whole list.
`scanFrequencyDays`	No	Days between scheduled scans.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the two behaviors that matter most: omitted fields are preserved, and brandTerms is a full replacement that triggers a free re-read of every stored answer so new spellings are picked up. That explains the cost side of a destructiveHint=true mutation. It still doesn't explain what else makes the call destructive (e.g. effects of changing language or location on stored data).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the field list, then the partial-update rule, then the one genuinely non-obvious parameter behavior. Nothing is redundant and the return value is stated in four words.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully says it returns the updated project, and it covers field semantics and the brandTerms side effect for a 7-parameter mutation. It stops short of covering failure modes such as an invalid projectId or permission requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns more by adding semantics the schema lacks, notably that brandTerms replaces the entire list rather than merging and that the re-read is free. The remaining parameters (name, industry, language, location, scanFrequencyDays) are only restated, not enriched.

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?

"Change an existing site's settings" gives a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the mutable fields (name, industry, brand terms, language, buyer location, scan frequency). This clearly separates it from create_project and from the sibling updaters update_competitor, update_persona, and update_prompt.

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 partial-update contract is stated ("Fields left out keep their value"), which tells the agent how to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this tool versus create_project or a scan-related sibling, nor any stated prerequisites.

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

All Teddit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?