Update a managed analytics share by changing its name, slug, or access parameters. Use it to adjust shared Umami reports without recreating the share link.
Update a managed share
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| shareId | Yes | ||
| parameters | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation but does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether omitted fields are cleared, whether 'parameters' replaces or merges the existing configuration, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. These are serious gaps for a write operation with four required parameters.
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 clause with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than concise communication. It is front-loaded but does not contain enough information to earn its place as the sole guidance for this tool.
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 no annotations, no output schema, four required parameters, a nested object, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine update semantics, required vs optional behavior, side effects, or parameter meaning.
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 0%, and the description supplies no meaning for any of the four required parameters. In particular, 'parameters' is a nested object with additionalProperties and no explanation of what keys it expects or whether it overwrites prior values. The description adds nothing beyond the field names in the schema.
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 the verb 'update' and the resource 'managed share', which is better than a bare name restatement. However, 'managed share' is left undefined and the description does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like create_share, get_share, delete_share, and create_website_share. An agent must infer the relationship from the name alone.
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 reference to alternative tools such as get_share for reading or delete_share for removal. The one-sentence description provides no context for selecting this tool over its many share-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.