Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MODX MCP

MODX MCP

by rumata-estor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

modx_update_system_setting

Update a MODX system setting by key, optionally setting its value, area, xtype, and namespace.

Instructions

Update a MODX system setting by key.

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "modx_update_system_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
areaNo
valueNo
xtypeNo
namespaceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.4

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 for a mutation tool, yet it discloses nothing. It does not say whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the value is validated against xtype, whether the config cache is cleared, or what a successful response looks like.

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 sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good, but its brevity is the result of under-specification rather than discipline. There is room for a clause or two of behavioral or parameter context at no structural cost.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is far too thin. An agent could not confidently call it without inspecting the raw schema and guessing at field semantics and side effects.

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%, so the description must compensate for the five undocumented parameters, but it only references 'key'. The meaning and accepted values of area, value, xtype, and namespace — arguably the most important inputs for this operation — are left entirely 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 ('Update') and resource ('MODX system setting'), with the key-based targeting made explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like modx_create_system_setting and modx_delete_system_setting, though that differentiation comes from the name rather than the text.

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_system_setting or modx_get_system_setting, no indication that the setting must already exist, and no mention of prerequisites such as permissions. The agent must infer the entire usage context from the tool 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