Concrete CMS MCP Server

update-file-by-id

Destructive

Update a Concrete CMS file by ID to change its title, description, tags, and dimensions or duration attributes.

Instructions

Update a file by its ID

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update-file-by-id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No
`title`	No	Title/name as displayed in the file manager.
`attributes`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0-alpha.1Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds nothing about what makes this destructive — e.g. whether omitted fields are cleared, whether tags are replaced or merged, or whether the file becomes unavailable during the update. For a mutation with a nested attributes object, that silence is a real gap.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness — it contains no front-loaded useful information and every word simply echoes the tool name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive four-parameter mutation with a nested object, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description provides none of the context needed to invoke it safely or correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25%: tags, description, and all three nested attributes (width, height, duration) have no schema documentation, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. It does not compensate for the coverage gap even partially.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the tool name almost verbatim: 'Update a file by its ID' adds no resource detail beyond what 'update-file-by-id' already says. It does not indicate which file properties can be changed or how this differs from add-file, get-file-by-id, or delete-file-by-id.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as move-file-to-location for relocation. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.