open-mcp-apps

by 2nd1st

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Update item fields

data_update_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an item by shallow-merging fields with optimistic concurrency; set a key to null to remove it.

Instructions

Shallow-merge fields into an item (set a key to null to remove it). Uses optimistic concurrency.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`actor`	No
`fields`	Yes
`collection`	No	the item's collection, if known — the write is refused unless the row is in it
`command_id`	Yes	idempotency key — generate a fresh uuid per action
`expected_version`	No	the item version you last saw

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`ok`	Yes
`eot`	No
`seq`	No
`item`	No
`note`	No
`reason`	No
`deleted`	No
`collection`	No
`violations`	No
`expected_version`	No
`prev_collection_seq`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.1Oct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / collection

Added value: +{
+  "description": "the item's collection, if known — the write is refused unless the row is in it",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.5.7Aug 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: shallow-merge semantics, the null-to-remove convention, and that writes use optimistic concurrency (implying expected_version conflicts). It stops short of describing conflict failure behavior 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and its most surprising behavior (null deletes). No filler, 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies the merge/concurrency behavior an agent needs, but omits guidance on tool selection and leaves the 'actor' parameter undocumented.

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 coverage is 50%: collection, command_id, and expected_version are already documented in the schema. The description contributes meaning for 'fields' (null removes a key) and hints at expected_version via optimistic concurrency, but leaves 'id' and 'actor' entirely unexplained. Roughly baseline for partial coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('shallow-merge fields into an item') and even clarifies the semantics of the merge, which implicitly distinguishes it from full-replace or bulk-write siblings like apply_data_writes. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast against any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as apply_data_writes, data_add_item, or data_move_item, nor any stated preconditions beyond what the schema implies. The merge/null semantics are useful but describe mechanics, not selection criteria.

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