Anytype MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

anytype_update_type

Modify an existing type in Anytype by updating its name, description, icon, layout, or properties to adapt your workspace structure.

Instructions

Actualiza un tipo existente

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": {
      "space_id": "<space_id>",
      "type_id": "<type_id>"
    },
    "name": "anytype_update_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`space_id`	Yes	ID del espacio
`type_id`	Yes	ID del tipo
`name`	No	Nuevo nombre
`description`	No	Nueva descripción
`icon`	No	Icono
`layout`	No	Nuevo layout
`properties`	No	Nuevos IDs de propiedades

Implementation Reference

src/handlers/types-tags.ts:69-76 (handler)

The main handler function for 'anytype_update_type' tool. It destructures args to get space_id, type_id, and updateData, then makes a PATCH request to the Anytype API endpoint `/v1/spaces/${space_id}/types/${type_id}` and returns the response as formatted text.

export async function handleUpdateType(args: any) {
  const { space_id, type_id, ...updateData } = args;
  const response = await makeRequest(`/v1/spaces/${space_id}/types/${type_id}`, {
    method: 'PATCH',
    body: JSON.stringify(updateData),
  });
  return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) }] };
}

src/tools/types.ts:49-65 (schema)

The tool schema definition including name, description, and inputSchema for validating arguments to the 'anytype_update_type' tool.

{
  name: 'anytype_update_type',
  description: 'Actualiza un tipo existente',
  inputSchema: {
    type: 'object',
    properties: {
      space_id: { type: 'string', description: 'ID del espacio' },
      type_id: { type: 'string', description: 'ID del tipo' },
      name: { type: 'string', description: 'Nuevo nombre' },
      description: { type: 'string', description: 'Nueva descripción' },
      icon: iconSchema,
      layout: { type: 'string', description: 'Nuevo layout' },
      properties: { type: 'array', items: { type: 'string' }, description: 'Nuevos IDs de propiedades' },
    },
    required: ['space_id', 'type_id'],
  },
},

src/index.ts:154-155 (registration)
The switch case in the CallToolRequestHandler that registers and dispatches calls to the handleUpdateType handler for the 'anytype_update_type' tool.
```
case 'anytype_update_type':
  return await handleUpdateType(args);
```
src/index.ts:85-93 (registration)
The tools array construction that includes typeTools (containing the schema for anytype_update_type) for the ListToolsRequestHandler.
```
const tools = [
  ...spaceTools,
  ...objectTools,
  ...propertyTools,
  ...typeTools,
  ...tagTools,
  ...templateTools,
  ...listTools,
];
```
src/index.ts:58-58 (registration)
Import of the handleUpdateType function from handlers/types-tags.js, necessary for registration in the switch dispatcher.
```
handleUpdateType,
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects on dependent objects, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise - a single Spanish phrase that directly states the action. While perhaps too brief for clarity, it's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information. The efficiency is good, though it may sacrifice completeness.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'tipo' means in this system, what happens when updating, what the response contains, or how this differs from other update operations. The context signals indicate significant complexity that the description doesn't address.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (like explaining relationships between parameters or special constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Actualiza un tipo existente' (Updates an existing type) states the basic action and resource but is vague about what 'tipo' (type) means in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'anytype_update_object' or 'anytype_update_property', leaving ambiguity about what specific resource is being updated.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'anytype_update_object' or 'anytype_create_type'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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