Skip to main content
Glama
jgt87

Copilot Studio MCP

by jgt87
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Edit a knowledge source

cs_edit_knowledge

Edit a Copilot Studio knowledge source file's name, description, site URL, subpage settings, trigger condition, and search terms. Preview the diff first, then confirm to apply changes.

Instructions

Change a knowledge source file: name, description, site URL, includeSubPages, trigger condition (null removes it), additional search terms. The first call changes nothing: it returns the files it would write, as a diff against what is there now, for the user to approve. Call it again with the same arguments plus confirm: true to write them.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNo
renameNo
confirmNoRequired to write the change to the file. Without it the tool returns a preview - the changed lines against the current ones, and the character count - and writes nothing.
knowledgeYes
workspaceNoPath to (or inside) the agent workspace. Defaults to CPS_WORKSPACE or the current directory.
descriptionNo
includeSubPagesNo
triggerConditionNo
additionalSearchTermsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.8
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.7
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Required to write the change to the file. Without it the tool returns a preview - the changed lines against the current ones, and the character count - and writes nothing.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.5

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the dry-run default, that the first call returns a diff of the files it would write for user approval, that confirm: true is required to actually persist changes, and that null on trigger condition removes it. These are the exact behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the editable fields and then the critical two-phase write workflow. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the write semantics, the approval gate, and the preview return value. It omits permission/auth requirements and the meaning of the required knowledge parameter, but the operationally risky behavior is fully addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 22%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it maps name/rename, description, site URL, includeSubPages, triggerCondition, and additionalSearchTerms, including null-removes semantics for the latter two. It leaves the required 'knowledge' parameter unexplained and uses 'name' where the schema says 'rename', so it falls short of full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a knowledge source file') and enumerates the editable fields, which cleanly separates it from the sibling cs_add_knowledge_source. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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 explicit invocation guidance: the first call is a no-op preview, and the write only happens on a second call with the same arguments plus confirm: true. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and alternatives such as cs_add_knowledge_source for creating new sources.

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