shopify_update_pageUpdate a Shopify page's title, HTML body, handle, template suffix, or publish status. Only fields you provide are changed.
Update a page's title, HTML body, handle, template suffix, and publish status. Only provided fields are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | HTML body content | |
| title | No | ||
| handle | No | ||
| pageId | Yes | Page GID | |
| isPublished | No | Publish or unpublish the page | |
| templateSuffix | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing PATCH-style partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), telling the agent that unspecified fields are preserved. It stops short of noting permission requirements or side effects such as a handle change altering the public URL.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the field scope is front-loaded ahead of the partial-update caveat. Every clause carries information.
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?
For a mutation tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers the mutation surface and the partial-update contract adequately. It omits error behavior for an invalid pageId and any permission or publication-timing nuances, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names title, HTML body, handle, template suffix, and publish status, covering five of the six parameters semantically. Only pageId is left to the schema, and no format or validation detail (e.g., handle slug rules) is added.
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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a page) and enumerates the mutable fields, making the scope unambiguous. The resource naturally separates it from sibling updaters like shopify_update_blog, shopify_update_article, and shopify_update_collection, though it never explicitly names an alternative to route against.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., obtaining pageId from shopify_get_page_by_id), and no exclusions. The only usage-adjacent statement is 'Only provided fields are changed,' which describes update semantics rather than when this tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.