Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
voog-mcp

voog-mcp

by runnel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

text_update

Idempotent

Update the raw HTML content of a text body in Voog CMS, which renders into the page's {% content %} Liquid tag. Reversible by sending the previous body.

Instructions

Update a text body (PUT /texts/{id} {body}). body is the raw HTML rendered into the page where the matching {% content %} Liquid tag lives. Reversible by calling again with the previous body.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "text_id": "<text_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "text_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesRaw HTML for the content area
siteYes
text_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining reversibility and the role of body as raw HTML for a Liquid tag, which goes beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the action and parameters, followed by a key behavioral note. No extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple update tool with good annotations, but lacks explanation for site and text_id parameters and does not mention output or return values. The description is sufficient but not thorough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 3 parameters with only body having a description (33% coverage). The description explains body's purpose in detail but does not clarify site or text_id, leaving some ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'text body', including the HTTP method and path. It explains that the body is raw HTML for a Liquid tag, and mentions reversibility, making the purpose very clear and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like page_set_data or content_partial_update. The description implies it's for updating text bodies but does not specify 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