Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Dart MCP Server

Dart MCP Server

by its-dart
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_doc

Modify document details in Dart MCP Server by updating its title, text content, and folder location using the document ID.

Instructions

Update an existing doc. You can modify its title, text content, and folder.

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_doc"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
folderNoThe title of the folder to place the doc in
idYesThe 12-character alphanumeric ID of the doc
textNoThe text content of the doc, which can include markdown formatting
titleNoThe title of the doc

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update an existing doc') and specifies modifiable fields. There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially for an update operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters (id, title, text, folder). The description lists modifiable fields ('title, text content, and folder'), which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing doc'), and specifies what can be modified ('title, text content, and folder'). It distinguishes from creation tools like 'create_doc' by emphasizing 'existing'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_task' beyond the resource name.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the doc ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new docs), or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_task'. Usage is implied through the action and resource but not explicitly stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools