docflow-mcp

Docflow Update File

docflow_update_file

Update a processed file's metadata or verification status by providing workspace ID, file ID, and the fields to change.

Instructions

Update metadata or verification status of a processed file (POST /file/update).

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "file_id": "<file_id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "docflow_update_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Fields to update (e.g. {"verification_status": 1}).
`file_id`	Yes	ID of the file to update.
`workspace_id`	Yes	Target workspace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a mutation via 'Update' and 'POST', but it does not mention side effects, idempotence, allowed verification status values, permissions, or consequences for the file.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, the kinds of updates, and the endpoint efficiently.

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?

The schema and output schema carry parameter and return-value details, so the baseline burden is lower. Still, because there are no annotations and no usage guidance, some important context around status updates and file prerequisites is missing, making the definition merely adequate.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover all three parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds the context that updates target 'metadata or verification status', but it does not meaningfully extend the per-parameter semantics already present.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update') with a precise object ('metadata or verification status of a processed file') and even includes the endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from file-upload, fetch, delete, and retry siblings.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like docflow_retry_files, docflow_run_review, or docflow_delete_files. The phrase 'processed file' implies a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server