Update an existing map's details in your Kanka campaign by supplying the campaign ID, map ID, and the fields to change.
Update an existing map
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| data | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies mutation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether data replaces or merges fields, or what side effects or requirements exist. For a mutation tool this is a significant transparency gap.
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 concise at one short sentence, but it is under-specified to the point of being uninformative. It essentially restates the tool name and provides no useful information, so the brevity does not contribute to clarity.
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?
For an update operation with three required parameters, one of which is an unstructured object, and no output schema or annotations, this description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the request shape, expected response, or any constraints, making correct invocation impossible without external knowledge.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The 'data' object is opaque, and the roles of campaignId and id are unexplained, leaving the agent without any indication of what values to provide.
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 'Update an existing map' is a clear verb+resource statement and it implies the map exists, distinguishing it from create_map. However, it adds almost no information beyond the tool name and doesn't describe what 'update' entails or differentiate from other update_* siblings, leaving the purpose functional but shallow.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention create_map, get_map, delete_map, or any conditions that would select this tool, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.