@growi/mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

updateTag

Idempotent

Update tags on a GROWI page by providing its page ID, revision ID, and an array of tag names. Enables precise tag management.

Instructions

Update tags for a page in GROWI

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": {
      "pageId": "<pageId>",
      "revisionId": "<revisionId>",
      "tags": "<tags>"
    },
    "name": "updateTag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	Yes	Array of tag names to set for the page
`pageId`	Yes	Page ID to update tags for
`appName`	No	GROWI app name to operate on (optional, uses default if not specified)
`revisionId`	Yes	Revision ID of the page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Description adds no behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior; description merely says 'update tags'.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous words.

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?

No output schema and no return value explanation. Mutation tool with 4 parameters; description lacks details on side effects, concurrency, or replacement behavior.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters. Description does not add further meaning, baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb 'Update' and resource 'tags for a page', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getPageTag (retrieve tags) or createPage.

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 tool versus alternatives. Does not mention conditions or prerequisites.

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