Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_set_lexicon_entry

Creates or overrides a MODX lexicon entry by storing a database value for a namespace, topic, and language, replacing the file-based default.

Instructions

Create or override a lexicon entry (DB override of the file value).

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "namespace": "<namespace>",
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "modx_set_lexicon_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
topicYes
valueNo
languageNo
namespaceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the write lands in the database and shadows the file value. It omits overwrite semantics for an existing override, permission requirements, and whether caches or the live site need refreshing afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the tool's five parameters and mutation semantics.

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the definition is too thin. Nothing is said about required permissions, the effect of overwriting existing overrides, or the default handling of the optional value and language fields.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It says nothing about name vs topic vs namespace scoping, whether value is optional (and what happens if omitted), or what language defaults to.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: create or override a lexicon entry, plus the clarifying note that it is a DB override of the file value. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as modx_revert_lexicon_entry or modx_list_lexicon_entries, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 on when to use this versus modx_revert_lexicon_entry (which presumably removes the override) or when a file-based value should be left alone. The word 'override' hints at the use case but the description never states prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools