eMCP for Evolution CMS

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Content Update Tool

evo.write.content.update

Destructive

Update fields and template variables of an existing document, then save it with save_document; use publish_document for publish state changes.

Instructions

Update fields and TVs of an existing document. Requires save_document; publish state changes need publish_document.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "evo.write.content.update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`tvs`	No	Template variable values keyed by TV name
`fields`	No	Document columns to change: pagetitle, longtitle, description, alias, introtext, content, menutitle, template, parent, published, pub_date, unpub_date, hidemenu, menuindex, isfolder, searchable, cacheable, richtext, type, contentType, content_dispo, link_attributes, alias_visible, hide_from_tree, show_in_search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered structurally. The description adds the prerequisite/publish-routing context, but it does not say whether the update merges or replaces unspecified columns, and the listed fields include published/pub_date/unpub_date, which sits uneasily with the claim that publish state changes require a separate tool.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite caveat. It could be tightened by resolving the ambiguity of the save_document clause rather than adding length.

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?

For a destructive three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers prerequisites but omits what a successful call returns, whether the update is atomic across fields and TVs, and how the published column interacts with the separate publish tool. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict side effects.

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 67% and the schema itself already documents tvs as "Template variable values keyed by TV name" and enumerates the mutable document columns. The description only restates the parameter categories ("fields and TVs") without adding format, validation, or replacement semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update fields and TVs of an existing document"), which tells an agent exactly what is modified and scopes it to an existing record rather than creating one. It implicitly separates itself from evo.write.content.create and evo.write.content.publish, though it names those tools by different identifiers (save_document, publish_document) than the actual sibling names.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives partial routing guidance: publish state changes belong in publish_document, and a save_document step is referenced. However, "Requires save_document" is ambiguous — it does not say whether that call must come before, after, or whether the update persists without it — so the agent must infer the call sequence. No exclusions are stated for field-level edge cases.

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