glpi_update_knowbase_categoryUpdate a GLPI knowledge base category by ID to change its name, parent, or settings. Use this when category details need correction without creating a new category.
Update a knowledge base category by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Fields to update | |
| categoryId | Yes | Item ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing on top of that — it does not say what a partial update does to unspecified fields, whether permissions are required, or how the destructive behavior manifests.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no padding or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of richer content.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive mutation whose `input` is an unconstrained nested object (additionalProperties: {}), the description should at minimum indicate what fields are updatable and what the update semantics are — none of that is present.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter information is "by ID," which merely restates the categoryId parameter already documented as "Item ID" in the schema, and it says nothing about which fields the free-form `input` object accepts.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Update a knowledge base category"), which cleanly separates it from glpi_update_knowbase_item and glpi_update_knowbase_category's other siblings by resource type. However, it adds no explicit differentiation from the sibling list beyond the resource name itself.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus glpi_create_knowbase_category, glpi_delete_knowbase_category, or glpi_update_knowbase_item. No prerequisites, no preconditions, no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.