Anam MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_tool

Update an existing tool by providing its ID and any fields you want to change, such as name, description, or webhook settings.

Instructions

Update a tool. Only provide the fields you want to change.

Args: tool_id: The UUID of the tool to update name: New tool name description: New description url: New webhook URL (for webhook tools) method: New HTTP method (for webhook tools) await_response: Whether to wait for response (for webhook tools)

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": {
      "tool_id": "<tool_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool_id`	Yes
`name`	No
`description`	No
`url`	No
`method`	No
`await_response`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.13May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it updates a tool and lists fields, but does not explain effects on existing sessions, permissions needed, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure.

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: one sentence plus an args list. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the main action, no redundancy.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameter meanings adequately but lacks details on return values (output schema exists but not described) and cross-field dependencies (e.g., webhook-specific fields).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'tool_id: The UUID', 'url: New webhook URL (for webhook tools)'). It provides basic semantics but could include more constraints (e.g., allowed methods).

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 'Update a tool' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds 'Only provide the fields you want to change' clarifying partial update semantics, distinguishing it from other update tools among siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a partial update guideline ('Only provide the fields you want to change') but lacks explicit context on when to use this vs alternatives like create_tool or delete_tool, or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server