masscode-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

masscode_update_snippet

Update an existing code snippet by ID. Specify only the fields to change, like name, folder, favorite status, or description.

Instructions

Update an existing snippet by ID. Only provide fields you want to change.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "masscode_update_snippet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Snippet ID
`name`	No
`folderId`	No
`isFavorite`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of partial updates (only specified fields change), which goes beyond a simple 'update' verb. It does not detail error handling or permissions, but the partial update behavior is important and clearly stated.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose and a crucial usage detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the primary actions but lacks context on return values, error behavior (e.g., if ID does not exist), and whether at least one field to change is required. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but leaves some gaps.

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 description coverage is only 20% (only id has a description). The description compensates somewhat by explaining partial update semantics, which gives meaning to all optional fields, but it does not describe individual parameters beyond their names. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, so some meaning is conveyed.

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 clearly identifies the operation as updating an existing snippet by ID, using the specific verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing snippet by ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_snippet, get_snippet, and list_snippets.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on partial update semantics with 'Only provide fields you want to change.' This clearly indicates the intended usage pattern and what fields are optional, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server