update_custom_formUpdate an existing Rootly custom form by ID to change its name, Slack trigger command, enabled status, or description.
Update a specific custom form by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Required. ID of the custom form (fills `{id}` in /v1/custom_forms/{id}). Pass it as `id` -- this tool has no `custom_form_id` argument. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain whether the update is partial or full-replacement, what happens to attributes that are omitted, or that the nested 'data' wrapper is a JSON:API envelope — all of which matter for a mutation with a nested payload.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is efficient. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance — 'specific' and 'by id' are doing little work, and the sentence is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with a nested JSON:API-style payload, the description should clarify update semantics, which attributes are mutable, and how omissions are handled; none of that is present.
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 coverage is only 50%, and the description supplies zero parameter information — it does not mention the `id` path parameter or the `data.attributes` structure. The schema itself does carry good field-level descriptions (including the deprecated `slug` and the ignored `data.id`), but the description contributes nothing to compensate for the coverage gap or to clarify partial-update semantics.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update a specific custom form by id'), which is adequate. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title and does nothing to distinguish this tool from close siblings like update_custom_field, update_form_set, or update_form_field, all of which appear in the sibling list.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent update_* tools, nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., the form must already exist, permissions needed). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.