Canny MCP Server

update_post

Keep customer feedback accurate by updating a Canny post's title, status, details, category, and custom fields.

Instructions

Update an existing Canny post

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": {
      "postId": "<postId>"
    },
    "name": "update_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title for the post (optional)
`postId`	Yes	ID of the post to update
`status`	No	New status for the post (optional)
`details`	No	New description for the post (optional)
`categoryId`	No	New category ID for the post (optional)
`customFields`	No	Updated custom field values (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing Canny post' without explaining whether it's a partial update, what happens to omitted fields, or any required permissions or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. Every word earns its place.

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 the mutation nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not address partial vs. full update behavior, error handling, or any prerequisites. It is minimally viable but leaves important gaps.

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 already documents all six parameters. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is sufficient at baseline.

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?

The description 'Update an existing Canny post' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (post), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_post or get_post. It is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you need to modify an existing post, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like create_post for new posts. The context is clear enough, but there are no explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server