Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_update_namespace

Update an existing MODX namespace by name, including its path and assets path, to correct or relocate namespace configuration.

Instructions

Update a namespace (by name).

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>"
    },
    "name": "modx_update_namespace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
pathNo
assets_pathNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It implies a mutation and identifies the target key, but says nothing about required permissions, whether omitted fields (path, assets_path) are cleared or preserved, or whether changing paths breaks installed components.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing in the sentence is wasted; there is simply too little of it.

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 zero schema documentation on three parameters, the description is far too thin. It does not cover side effects, field semantics, or the expected response, leaving the agent to guess at invocation details.

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% across three parameters, yet the description only echoes the 'name' key and leaves 'path' and 'assets_path' completely undefined. An agent cannot tell from either source what these two path parameters should contain or how they differ.

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 a namespace") and names the lookup key ("by name"), which matches the required 'name' parameter. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like modx_create_namespace or modx_delete_namespace, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus modx_create_namespace or modx_list_namespaces, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that updating requires an existing namespace identified by name.

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