central-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_project

Update an existing project's configuration: change its agent, description, tags, permission mode, fallback chain, pinned session, or response language while leaving omitted fields unchanged.

Instructions

Update an existing project's fields. Omitted args stay unchanged.

Use this to permanently change a project's primary agent, edit its description/tags, flip its permission_mode preference, set a fallback chain of agents to try when the primary fails (e.g. token limits hit), pin a specific session_id, or set a preferred response language for dispatches.

language behavior:

A non-empty string (e.g. "Korean", "ko", "Français", "fr") → every future dispatch prepends "Respond to the user in ." to the prompt. One-shot dispatch(language="...") still overrides.
"" (empty string) → clear the saved language; dispatches fall back to the agent's own default (English).
None (omitted) → leave the saved language untouched.

session_id behavior:

A non-empty string → all future dispatches without an explicit session_id will resume that session (useful for droid, which has no headless "resume latest", and for guarding other agents against ambient-drift when interactive sessions share the cwd).
"" (empty string) → clear the pin, returning to the agent's default resume-latest behavior.
None (omitted) → leave the pin untouched.

Agent names in agent and fallback are validated. permission_mode must be one of "bypass", "auto", "restricted". If any value is invalid the registry is not touched.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`tags`	No
`agent`	No
`fallback`	No
`language`	No
`session_id`	No
`description`	No
`permission_mode`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.20.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key side effects: permanent modification, omitted-args-stays-unchanged, atomic validation (registry untouched on invalid input), and detailed future-dispatch behavior for language and session_id. It also states permission_mode allowed values and agent name validation.

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 long but well organized: purpose first, then parameter-specific behaviors in structured sections. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 no annotations, 8 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, this description is remarkably complete. It covers complex semantics, validation, atomicity, and side effects, and an output schema exists for return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates admirably: it explains the semantics of language and session_id including empty-string vs null, defines permission_mode values, and clarifies that agent/fallback are validated. Some parameters like tags and description are only implied by 'edit its description/tags', but their schema types cover the basics.

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?

Description opens with 'Update an existing project's fields' – a specific verb and resource – and enumerates the mutable fields. This clearly distinguishes it from add_project, remove_project, and update_user_preferences.

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 lists specific use cases (changing primary agent, editing description/tags, setting fallback chain, etc.). However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for new projects vs. reads.

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