Skip to main content
Glama
anythink-cloud

Anythink-MCP

Official

Fields: update

fields_update
Destructive

Update an existing field's label, description, display type, default, options and its required, searchable, public or indexed flags, keeping any settings you don't pass.

Instructions

Update properties of an existing field. Changes a field's label, description, display type, default value, select options and its required, searchable, public-search and indexed flags. Settings you don't pass keep their value, except the description, which is cleared unless passed again. It cannot rename a field or change its database type, and locked fields are refused. It changes or deletes existing data, so check with the user before running it.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoHuman-readable label
entityYesEntity name
publicNoMark field as publicly searchable
defaultNoDefault value
displayNoDisplay type: input, textarea, rich-text, select, entity-select, radio, country-select, checkbox, short-date, long-date, timestamp, relationship, file, secret, user, jsonb, geo, dynamic-reference
indexedNoAdd database index
optionsNoComma-separated option list for select display, e.g. "Running,Cycling,Rugby". Use label=value to split, e.g. "Running=running,Cycling=cycling"
multipleNoAllow multiple values on a select field
requiredNoMark field as required
no_publicNoRemove public searchable flag
field_nameYesField name to update
no_indexedNoRemove database index
searchableNoEnable full-text search on this field
descriptionNoField description
no_multipleNoRestrict to a single value on a select field
no_requiredNoRemove required constraint
no_searchableNoDisable full-text search on this field

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.27

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds a genuinely non-obvious patch semantic beyond the annotations: unpassed settings retain their values EXCEPT description, which is cleared unless passed again. Combined with the locked-field refusal and the data-change warning, this is rich behavioral context the destructiveHint annotation alone does not convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by patch semantics, hard limits, and a safety warning. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

For a destructive 17-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation surface, patch semantics, exclusions, and a confirmation guardrail, which is everything an agent needs to call it responsibly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by grouping the mutable properties and disclosing the special clearing behavior of the description parameter. It doesn't detail the no_* negation flags, so it stays short of 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Update properties of an existing field") and enumerates exactly what properties can change, making it trivially distinguishable from siblings like fields_add, fields_delete, fields_get and fields_list.

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?

Clearly states when-not conditions: it cannot rename a field or change its database type, and locked fields are refused. It also advises checking with the user first. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use for renaming/type changes, so routing is partly left to inference.

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