phabricator-mcp

phabricator_document_edit

Destructive

Edit an existing Phriction wiki document's title or content via the Conduit API. Provide the slug and new title or Remarkup content to update wiki pages.

Instructions

Edit an existing Phriction wiki document title or content. Uses phriction.edit (the only method that can update document 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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "phabricator_document_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Document slug/path (e.g., "projects/myproject/")
`title`	No	New document title
`content`	No	New document content (Remarkup)
`description`	No	Edit description/summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.19May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds the method-level detail that phriction.edit is the sole content-update path, but it doesn't say whether content is fully replaced or merged, whether version history is preserved, or what permissions are required.

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 with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The parenthetical method note is mildly implementation-oriented but does convey a real constraint.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition leaves gaps: partial-update semantics for omitted fields, treatment of the undocumented 'description' parameter, and any auth or history behavior go unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that title and content are editable but omits the slug (the required parameter) and the fourth 'description' parameter, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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 (Edit) and resource (Phriction wiki document) plus the fields touched (title or content). The word "existing" implicitly separates it from the sibling phabricator_document_create, though it never names that sibling.

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?

The second sentence establishes that phriction.edit is the only path for updating content, which is a useful routing fact. However, it gives no when-not guidance, no mention of phabricator_document_create for new documents, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing slug.

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

Deploy Server