Update a Slack List item's text or status by providing list ID and item ID. Requires lists:write scope.
Update an existing Slack List item. Requires lists:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | New item text (optional) | |
| status | No | New status (optional) | |
| item_id | Yes | Item ID to update | |
| list_id | Yes | List ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the required lists:write scope, which is useful auth context. However, it does not state whether updates are partial (only provided fields) or full replacements, nor any side effects on the item.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence front-loads the verb and resource, followed by the scope requirement. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema covers parameters well and the purpose is clear, but there is no output schema and no mention of whether omitted fields are left unchanged or what the return value looks like. These are notable gaps for an agent predicting the result of an update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (list_id, item_id, value, status) with clear explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb 'Update' plus resource 'Slack List item' makes the operation unambiguous. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete siblings, allowing an agent to differentiate without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_list_item, update_list, or delete_list_item. 'Existing' implies a prerequisite but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned; the scope requirement is auth context, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.