Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SharePoint MCP Server

SharePoint MCP Server

by mdev26
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Update_Document

Update an existing document's content by specifying the file path and new text or binary data. Overwrites the current file with the provided content.

Instructions

Update the content of an existing document

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "Update_Document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to the file to update
contentYesNew file content
is_binaryNoWhether the content is base64 encoded binary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.5.6

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Update', implying replacement without specifying whether it overwrites, appends, or requires existing file. No mention of permissions or binary handling beyond schema.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Could be slightly more detailed without harming conciseness.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. For a mutation tool with 3 params, description lacks important behavioral details like overwriting behavior and file existence requirements.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds no extra meaning beyond param names and schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing document', distinguishing it from sibling tools like Create_*, Delete_*, or Edit_Word_Document.

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?

No usage context, when-to-use, or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives like Edit_Word_Document for specific formats.

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