Edit an organization's name or description using its ID. Supports partial updates to organization data in DefectDojo.
Update an organization (partial update).
Args: organization_id: The organization ID name: New name description: New description
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| organization_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait — that this is a partial update, so omitted fields are presumably left unchanged — which is more than the annotations provide. However, it says nothing about permission requirements, whether null values clear a field, side effects, or reversibility for a mutation tool.
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?
Short and front-loaded: the purpose line comes first and the arg list is compact. No wasted prose, though the arg list is close to redundant with the schema.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description is thin on the behavioral context an agent needs (permissions, null handling, partial-update semantics), making it only minimally adequate.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only restates parameter names ('organization_id: The organization ID', 'name: New name'). It conveys that name and description are the mutable fields but adds no format, constraint, or optionality meaning beyond what the schema already shows.
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 and resource ('Update an organization') and adds the qualifier '(partial update)', so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from sibling write tools like create_organization or delete_organization beyond the verb, but the name/verb pairing is clear.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the other organization tools (create_organization, get_organization, delete_organization). The '(partial update)' note implies you can supply a subset of fields, but prerequisites such as required permissions or when an update is appropriate are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.