Update a space's name, slug, or description in a Docmost wiki by providing its UUID or slug. Use it to rename spaces, change URL slugs, or revise descriptions.
Update a space name, slug, or description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| slug | No | ||
| space_id | Yes | Space UUID or slug | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether at least one optional field is required, slug uniqueness risks, or side effects like changing a space's URL.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the verb and target resource. Every word earns its place, even though the brevity contributes to missing context.
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 mutation tool with sparse annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine whether a successful update returns the updated space, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or what constraints like slug uniqueness apply.
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 only 25% (only space_id is described). The description enumerates name, slug, and description but adds no meaning beyond their names; it does not clarify what a slug is, the relationship between space_id and slug, or that the fields are individually optional.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the exact resource and mutable fields: space name, slug, and description. It is clear in scope and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_space_member_role by focusing on space metadata, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention update_page for page metadata, update_space_member_role for membership changes, or create_space/delete_space for lifecycle operations. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.