Modify fields of a local Finn.no draft, such as price or category, before publishing. Provide the draft ID and a changes object to keep listing details current.
Change fields of a local draft (e.g. {"price": 1500, "category": "43"}).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| draft_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says fields are changed. It does not disclose permissions, error behavior, whether existing unspecified fields are preserved, or any side effects beyond local draft mutation.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with an embedded example, and no sentence is wasted. It is appropriately sized for a short mutation tool.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, low parameter documentation, and nested object input. Although an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the description remains too thin about valid draft IDs, allowed changes, and mutation behavior.
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 only partially compensates by showing one example object for "changes". It does not describe allowed keys or value constraints, and it says nothing meaningful about "draft_id" beyond the parameter name.
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 ("Change fields") and resource ("local draft"), and the inline example clarifies the kind of payload involved. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as create_draft, publish_draft, or preview_draft, so it stops short of full clarity.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_draft, publish_draft, push_draft, or preview_draft. There are also no stated preconditions, exclusions, or workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.