Sitecore Community MCP

item-service-edit-item

Edit a Sitecore item by ID to update field values across versions, databases, or languages, enabling AI agents to modify XM, XP, and SitecoreAI content directly.

Instructions

Edit a Sitecore item by its ID.

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>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "item-service-edit-item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`data`	Yes
`options`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.3Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive mutation, which the 'Edit' wording is consistent with. But the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the edit is partial or full replacement, what happens to fields not supplied, or whether version/language scoping affects the write.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is well-formed and appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, 0% schema coverage, and a nested 'data' object, the description is too thin. It omits what fields can be edited, how version/language options behave, and any permission or side-effect context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the 'id' parameter ('by its ID'), leaving the required 'data' object (a flat string map of field values) and the 'options' object (version/database/language) entirely unexplained. For a nested-object mutation with two required params, this is a substantial gap.

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 (Sitecore item) scoped by ID, so the agent knows the operation type. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as authoring-update-item or item-service-create-item/delete-item, leaving the agent to infer which edit/update path applies.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives like authoring-update-item or common-set-item-field. The agent has only the name and the one-line purpose to decide.

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

Deploy Server