Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_update_access_policy

Update an existing access policy’s name, description, and JSON permissions map by ID to control user permissions in MODX.

Instructions

Update an access policy (e.g. its permissions map).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "modx_update_access_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameNo
descriptionNo
permissionsNoJSON map of permission=>bool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. For a mutation tool it says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether changes are reversible, or what permissions are needed to call it.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its terseness is efficient rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.

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?

With four parameters, no annotations, no output schema and low schema coverage, the definition should say more about update semantics and return behavior. As written, an agent cannot confidently predict the effect of a call that omits name or description.

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 only 25% (just the permissions JSON map), and the description compensates minimally with the parenthetical 'e.g. its permissions map'. The id, name and description parameters get no added meaning, and the crucial id-versus-name identification choice is unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update an access policy'), which cleanly separates it from the get/list/create/delete access-policy siblings. It stops short of the 5 level because it doesn't characterize the update scope (full replace vs partial) against any sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of required privilege level, and no note that an existing policy id must come from modx_get_access_policy or modx_list_access_policies. The agent must infer all preconditions.

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