Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Librarian MCP Server

Librarian MCP Server

by coladapo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_document

Update document content or metadata, including title, author, and tags. Optionally reclassify the document after changes.

Instructions

Update document metadata or content

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "update_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
updatesYes
documentIdYesThe document ID to update
reclassifyNoRe-run classification after update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects like reclassification triggering. The 'content' field says 'replaces existing', but metadata and tags behavior is ambiguous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise at 5 words, but this sacrifices completeness. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential behavioral details that a longer description could include.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and a complex nested input (updates with addTags, removeTags, content, metadata), the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or the net effect of update operations. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67% (all top-level and nested parameters have descriptions). The description adds little beyond summarizing the update action. It doesn't clarify parameter relationships or provide examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates document metadata or content, distinguishing it from siblings like store, delete, get. However, it lacks specificity about which metadata fields are modifiable, though the schema fills that gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., store_document for creation, get_document for retrieval). No prerequisites or context about when not to use it.

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