preset-mcp

update_css_template

Update an existing CSS template by providing its ID, new name, and CSS stylesheet. Use dry run to preview changes before applying.

Instructions

Update an existing CSS template.

Args: template_id: The CSS template ID to update. template_name: New name for the template. css: New CSS stylesheet text. dry_run: If True, preview the action without executing.

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": {
      "template_id": "<template_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_css_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`template_id`	Yes
`template_name`	No
`css`	No
`dry_run`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the dry_run parameter which previews without executing, but does not discuss destructive potential, permissions, or validation behavior. The output schema exists but is not described.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured as a docstring with a one-line summary and bulleted args. No extraneous information, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (4 params, 1 required, no enums, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It could mention whether the update replaces all fields or only provided ones, but overall it covers the essential aspects.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It gives meaningful explanations for all parameters: template_id, template_name, css, and dry_run, including default behavior for dry_run. This adds significant value beyond the input schema.

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?

The description starts with 'Update an existing CSS template.' which clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_css_template, get_css_template, and delete_css_template by specifying 'update' and 'existing'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating 'Update an existing CSS template.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or prerequisites, but the purpose is distinct from siblings. No alternatives are named, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server