machship-mcp

Update Custom Schema

machship_update_custom_schema

Update an existing custom schema by DotNet class ID, applying a revised JSON schema definition for the specified entity.

Instructions

Updates an existing custom schema by its DotNet class ID.

Args:

id (string): DotNet class ID of the schema to update
schema (object): Updated JSON schema definition

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	DotNet class ID
`schema`	Yes	Updated JSON schema definition

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No	Validation errors returned by Machship, if any
`object`	No	Response payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / schema / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true; the description adds essentially nothing beyond them. Key behaviors are undisclosed: whether the supplied schema replaces the stored definition wholesale, what happens on an unknown id, and whether the change is reversible. No contradiction with the annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The lead sentence is front-loaded and precise. The Args block duplicates the input schema verbatim, which adds a little redundancy but is harmless and short.

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

Completeness3/5

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 no explanation, and the parameters are fully covered by the schema. However, for a mutation tool with a free-form nested object argument, the missing replacement-semantics and error behavior leave a meaningful gap.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats the schema text and gives no hint about the shape or expected structure of the nested 'schema' object beyond 'Updated JSON schema definition'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates an existing custom schema') plus the identifier used (DotNet class ID). The verb distinguishes it from the get/create/delete custom-schema siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 versus machship_create_custom_schema or machship_get_custom_schema, no preconditions (must the schema already exist?), and no indication of whether this is a full replacement or a partial patch.

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

Deploy Server