Updates an existing content source by ID, including whether it is shared across organizations, so you can adjust source scope without recreating it.
Update content source PATCH /content/api/sources/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | (path) | |
| body | Yes | Request body | |
| apiVersion | No | The version of the API in yyyy-MM-dd format (UTC). For versioning information, please refer to /content/api/about |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description needn't re-state safety. It nonetheless adds nothing beyond the endpoint: no note on permissions, no side effects (e.g. org-wide impact of requestScopeOrg), and no statement of what part of the source is changed.
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?
Two short lines with no filler, but both are largely restatements of the tool name and HTTP route. It is succinct without being informative, so it does not fully earn its place.
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 mutation tool with a nested request body and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: what fields can be updated, whether the update is partial or full, and any org-sharing consequences. Annotations cover safety only, and the schema carries the rest without description help.
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 description coverage is 100%, with id, requestScopeOrg and apiVersion all documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, such as the implications of sharing a source across the org.
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?
The description states a generic verb+resource ('Update content source') and adds the PATCH path, so an agent can tell it mutates an existing source by id. However, it does not say which aspects of the source are updatable or how it differs from the many sibling content_* tools beyond the name itself.
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-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as content_create_content_source or content_get_content_source. The HTTP path is the only implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.