Agentic CMS

update_idea

Refine an idea's angle, target audience, or raw text before promoting it to content. Link or unlink from a topic.

Instructions

[Pipeline step 2 — Discover] Refine an idea (angle / target_audience / raw_text). Use this when the agent learns more context before promoting the idea to Content. Pass topic_id=null to explicitly un-link from a Topic.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_idea"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Idea UUID
`angle`	No
`source`	No
`raw_text`	No
`topic_id`	No
`target_audience`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior beyond the name: pipeline stage semantics and the un-link effect of topic_id=null. However, it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or whether unspecified fields are preserved on a partial update, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the pipeline stage and the action, then the trigger, then the edge-case instruction. No filler.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the pipeline context and one tricky parameter behavior but leaves `source` undefined and says nothing about what an update returns or whether omitted fields are cleared.

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 coverage is only 17% (just `id`), so the description has to compensate. It names the three refinable fields (angle / target_audience / raw_text) and explains topic_id=null as an explicit un-link, which the schema's bare anyOf does not. It omits the `source` parameter entirely, leaving one of six params undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Refine an idea') plus the exact fields it touches and its pipeline slot (Discover, step 2). It implicitly separates itself from promote_idea ('before promoting') and create_idea, though it doesn't name those siblings outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('when the agent learns more context before promoting the idea to Content') and a concrete usage rule (topic_id=null to un-link). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server