update_ciUpdate a CMDB configuration item
Update a CMDB configuration item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | CI attributes to update | |
| sys_id | Yes | The sys_id of the CI to update | |
| class_name | No | CMDB class name | cmdb_ci |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.1Input schema / properties / confirmRemoved value: -{
- "default": false,
- "description": "Acknowledge this destructive change. Only consulted when the server runs with --write-confirm and the client cannot show a confirmation dialog; ignored otherwise.",
- "type": "boolean"
-}v0.7.0Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "description": "Acknowledge this destructive change. Only consulted when the server runs with --write-confirm and the client cannot show a confirmation dialog; ignored otherwise.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing about what a destructive update overwrites, permission requirements, or how class_name affects behavior, so it contributes no behavioral context beyond the structured fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is well structured. It is arguably too terse for a destructive mutation tool, but along the conciseness axis it earns 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 destructive CMDB mutation with a nested free-form 'data' object and no output schema, the definition is thin: it says nothing about the shape of the nested attributes, the class_name default, or the effect of the update. Annotations cover the safety flags but not the operational detail an agent needs.
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%, so sys_id, data, and class_name are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance (e.g. the cmdb_ci default), leaving the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update a CMDB configuration item'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like update_record or create_ci, and never signals what a 'configuration item' update entails versus a generic record update.
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 routing to alternatives such as update_record or create_ci. The agent is left to infer the entire selection context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.