Updates a catalog item by setting its icon ID or maximum bulk request limit, letting administrators control item appearance and how many instances users can request at once.
Set an icon or request limit to a catalog item. Updates a catalog item with specified icon id or request limit. PATCH /catalog/api/admin/items/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The unique id of item to update. (path) | |
| body | Yes | The patch that apply to the item |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is known; the description adds only the admin PATCH path. It omits what a PATCH does to fields not supplied and does not mention that the body can also carry formId, which the schema allows. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The first two sentences are near-duplicates ("Set an icon or request limit..." / "Updates a catalog item with specified icon id or request limit"), wasting half the text. The endpoint line is useful metadata but the redundancy drags it below efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter PATCH with a nested body and no output schema, the definition covers target, fields and endpoint, and annotations carry the mutation semantics. The gap is the missing statement about partial-update behavior and formId coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so both the id and the nested body properties are already documented. The description repeats icon id and request limit but ignores the third body field, formId, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and is slightly selective.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Updates a catalog item") plus the fields being set (icon id, request limit), so the agent knows exactly what it targets. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling catalog_update_catalog_item_version, leaving the choice between them to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when/when-not guidance and no named alternative, despite several plausible siblings (catalog_update_catalog_item_version, catalog_create_or_update, catalog_patch_config). The only implied guidance is that this is the item-level PATCH endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.