Rockfish MCP Server

Official

by Rockfish-Data

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

update_project

Edit an existing project by ID to change its name or description, keeping Rockfish project records accurate.

Instructions

Update a project

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": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Project ID
`name`	No	Project name
`description`	No	Project description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it provides none. It does not describe whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether it requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a three-parameter update tool, a three-word sentence fails to cover necessary scope and behavior, so it is not sized correctly for its job.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a simple three-parameter schema, the description is incomplete. It omits usage guidance and behavioral context that an agent needs, though the schema does handle parameter details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (id, name, description) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update a project' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name, adding no specificity about what can be updated or how it differs from sibling tools like create_project or get_project. The schema provides the actual fields, but the description itself does not earn its place beyond the name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_project or get_project. The agent receives zero routing help for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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