ragic-mcp

ragic_update_record

Update specific fields of an existing record in a Ragic database. Only the provided fields are changed; locked records are not overwritten by default.

Instructions

Update fields of an existing record. Only the provided fields change.

check_lock defaults to true so a locked record will not be overwritten silently. Set to false to bypass (use with care).

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "sheet_index": "<sheet_index>",
      "record_id": "<record_id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "ragic_update_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`fields`	Yes
`record_id`	Yes
`check_lock`	No
`do_formula`	No
`do_workflow`	No
`sheet_index`	Yes
`do_link_load`	No
`notification`	No
`do_validation`	No
`do_default_value`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds behavioral detail on check_lock preventing silent overwrite, but omits other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or effects of extra booleans (do_formula, do_workflow, etc.).

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 sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds critical lock behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded essential info.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves most parameters undefined (e.g., path, sheet_index, do_workflow). Only check_lock is covered, so the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only check_lock is explained in the description; the remaining 10 parameters (including required fields, fields object, do_formula, etc.) receive no semantics beyond the schema names, which have 0% coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'Update fields of an existing record' with the specific caveat 'Only the provided fields change,' distinguishing it from creation or deletion siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ragic_create_record or ragic_lock; the description only explains check_lock behavior without usage context.

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

Deploy Server