Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-knowledge-server

mcp-knowledge-server

by NavinAnik
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

update_document

Update an existing document by providing its ID and a new file path to replace its content.

Instructions

Update an existing document by re-ingesting it.

    Args:
        document_id: UUID of the document to update.
        file_path: Absolute path to the new document file.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "update_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
document_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 're-ingesting' as the mechanism but does not disclose side effects, requirements, or whether the operation is destructive. There is no mention of permission needs, potential data loss, or response behavior.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a structured argument list. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, this is minimally adequate. It explains the basic purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks usage guidance and behavioral disclosures (e.g., does updating replace the entire document, are there prerequisites?). It does not cover edge cases or error scenarios.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section clearly explains both parameters: document_id as 'UUID of the document to update' and file_path as 'Absolute path to the new document file,' adding meaningful context beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Update an existing document by re-ingesting it.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_document, delete_document, and get_document.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'existing document' implies it is not for new documents, but no alternatives are mentioned and no exclusion criteria are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools