Statesman MCP Server

update_continent

Modify an existing continent's name or description by ID to keep geopolitical catalog data accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing continent's name or description.

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_continent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Continent ID
`name`	No	Updated continent name
`description`	No	Updated description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

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 the full burden. It implies mutation but never states partial-update semantics (whether omitting name or description leaves the field unchanged), whether omitted fields are cleared, permission requirements, or reversibility of the change. For a write tool, these are significant omissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the mutability constraint ('existing') is front-loaded. It is efficient but arguably too terse for a mutation tool.

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?

For a write operation with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description should explain what gets modified, whether updates are partial, and what is returned or confirmed. None of that is present, leaving an agent to guess at mutation semantics.

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 each of the three parameters is already documented in the schema. The description only restates that name and description are updatable and says nothing about the required ID or the alternative/optional nature of the two fields, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing continent") plus the mutable fields (name, description), which is enough to distinguish it from create_continent, delete_continent, and get_continent. It lacks any explicit sibling differentiation in text, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_continent or get_continent, and no prerequisites such as requiring an existing continent ID. The only hint is 'existing', which implies the record must already be present but does not say what happens otherwise.

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

Deploy Server