Shortcut MCP Server

Update Linked File

update_linked_file

Change details of a linked file in Shortcut. Provide linked_file_id and new values for URL, name, type, or description, with confirm set to CONFIRM_WRITE to apply.

Instructions

Update a linked file in Shortcut.

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": {
      "linked_file_id": "<linked_file_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_linked_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`name`	No
`type`	No
`confirm`	No	Must be CONFIRM_WRITE to execute
`dry_run`	No
`description`	No
`linked_file_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations to convey safety or side effects, the description carries the full burden but only states 'Update a linked file'. It does not disclose that the 'confirm' parameter is required for execution, that 'dry_run' exists, or any implications of the update (e.g., overwriting existing fields). This is a severe gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with zero wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of almost being a tautology; it reads as a restatement of the tool name rather than a useful elaboration.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no context about update behavior, required confirmation, dry-run functionality, or return values. It is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14% (only 'confirm' has a description). The description adds no meaning to the 7 parameters, failing to explain what 'name', 'url', 'type', 'description', or 'linked_file_id' represent or how they relate to the update operation.

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

Purpose4/5

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 'linked file', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/list by its action, but lacks specificity about what aspects of the linked file can be 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 (e.g., create_linked_file for new files, delete_linked_file for removal). The description offers no context, prerequisites, or scenarios where updating is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server