DragApp MCP Server

update_article

Update an existing knowledge base article's title, body, or category by providing the team and article IDs. Modify content to keep documentation current.

Instructions

Update an existing knowledge base article's title, body, or category. Use list_teams to find your team ID first.

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>",
      "articleId": "<articleId>"
    },
    "name": "update_article"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	New article body in HTML
`title`	No	New article title
`teamId`	Yes	The team ID
`articleId`	Yes	The article ID to update
`categoryId`	No	New category ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether updates are partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, or any side effects. The description is too brief.

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?

Two short, clear sentences with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given high schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite. Missing details like partial update behavior, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by grouping the updatable fields (title, body, category) and providing a hint about teamId via the prerequisite. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of each parameter beyond the schema.

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', the resource 'existing knowledge base article', and the specific fields (title, body, category). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_article or get_article.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description includes a prerequisite: 'Use list_teams to find your team ID first.' It implies when to use this tool (to update an article) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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