Webflow MCP Server

collection_fields_update

Update existing CMS collection field properties, including display name, required status, and help text, directly from Webflow.

Instructions

Update properties of an existing field in a CMS collection.

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_id": "<collection_id>",
      "field_id": "<field_id>",
      "request": "<request>"
    },
    "name": "collection_fields_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`request`	Yes	Request schema to update collection field metadata.
`field_id`	Yes	Unique identifier for the Field.
`collection_id`	Yes	Unique identifier for the Collection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It merely says 'update properties' without disclosing whether the update is partial or full, whether missing properties are left unchanged, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the semantics of the request object (e.g., partial update behavior), what happens if the field does not exist, or what response to expect. The tool has a nested parameter object, so more context is needed for correct invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details, but the schema already fully documents collection_id, field_id, and the request object with its nested properties. No additional value is needed.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'properties of an existing field in a CMS collection', which distinguishes it from sibling create tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or suggest create tools for new fields. The only hint is the word 'existing', but it's not explicit.

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