update_categoryModify OpenCart category fields such as name, status, and SEO metadata while changing only the fields you specify.
Update category fields. Only specified fields are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| meta_title | No | ||
| category_id | Yes | ||
| meta_description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Only specified fields are changed' hints at partial-update (PUT/PATCH) semantics but does not state permissions required, whether the change is reversible, whether unknown category_id errors out, or any response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 short sentences with no filler and the partial-update note is front-loaded. Efficient, though underspecified rather than truly concise.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage on five parameters, and no behavioral detail is incomplete. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but everything about invocation semantics 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 description coverage is 0% and none of the five parameters are described in text. The description mentions 'fields' generically but does not map them to name/status/meta_title/meta_description, so an agent cannot tell null vs omitted behavior or the meaning of 'status' from the tool definition alone.
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 verb ('update') and resource ('category') and field semantics, but 'category fields' is vague and does not distinguish this from siblings like update_product or update_setting. It gives the gist without naming which fields or what kind of category.
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 prerequisites, no alternative tools mentioned. The agent is left to infer that this is the tool for editing an existing category rather than creating one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.