Update a MongoDB document by its ID. Provide database credentials, collection name, new field values, and confirmation to apply the changes.
Update a document, identified by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| values | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | ||
| db_name | Yes | ||
| password | Yes | ||
| db_username | Yes | ||
| collection_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention that confirmation is required, whether the update replaces the whole document or merges fields, what authentication is needed, or what side effects occur.
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?
The description is one short sentence with no fluff, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a 7-parameter mutation tool and omits important behavioral and parameter context, so the brevity is not fully justified.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, seven required parameters, and zero parameter descriptions. The description only conveys the basic operation and identifier, leaving crucial details like confirmation semantics, update behavior, and authentication unexplained. This is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool reliably.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 7 required parameters. It clarifies that 'id' identifies the document, but it does not explain 'values', the 'confirm' flag, database/collection naming, or credentials. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema field names.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a document') and states the selector ('identified by id'). This separates it from sibling operations like insert, browse, or delete document, though it does not explicitly mention the database or collection scope, which is left to the schema.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as insert, delete, or browse. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are stated, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.