mixpost-mcp-server

mixpost_update_media

Update media file metadata, including name and alt text, using the media UUID to modify existing files.

Instructions

Update media file metadata

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": {
      "mediaUuid": "<mediaUuid>"
    },
    "name": "mixpost_update_media"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name for the media file
`alt_text`	No	Alt text for accessibility
`mediaUuid`	Yes	The UUID of the media file to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or whether existing fields are overwritten. It provides zero additional context beyond the tool name.

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 a single efficient sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified for other dimensions, which slightly reduces its value; still, it is appropriately concise.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context such as what happens on failure, whether updates are partial or full, or any side effects. It is minimally viable but clearly incomplete.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline applies. The description adds no extra meaning; it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 media file metadata' has a specific verb ('update') and resource ('media file metadata'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete or list media. It unambiguously states the tool's action.

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 (e.g., get_media, delete_media). There are no explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues beyond the basic action.

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