Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NomaCMS MCP Server

NomaCMS MCP Server

Official
by NomaCMS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Entry Version Label

update_entry_version_label

Update the label and description of a content entry version without modifying the immutable snapshot.

Instructions

Update a version's editable label and/or description. The snapshot payload itself is immutable.

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": {
      "collection_slug": "<collection_slug>",
      "uuid": "<uuid>",
      "version_number": "<version_number>"
    },
    "name": "update_entry_version_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesThe entry UUID
labelNoHuman-friendly label for this version (null clears it)
descriptionNoLonger note for this version (null clears it)
version_numberYesThe version number
collection_slugYesThe collection slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that only label/description are editable and snapshot is immutable, but doesn't mention permissions or error handling. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with key action and constraints.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity, complete schema coverage, and no output schema needed, the description provides sufficient context including the immutability of the snapshot.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool updates a version's editable label and/or description, and distinguishes from siblings like revert_entry_version by noting snapshot immutability.

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?

The description implies when to use it (to change label/description without affecting snapshot), but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. Adequate for a simple update tool.

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