RunWhen Platform MCP

Update Knowledge Base Article

update_knowledge_base_article

Modify an existing RunWhen knowledge base article in a workspace by UUID. Change only supplied fields like title, content, status, verification, or resource paths; omitted fields stay unchanged.

Instructions

Update an existing Knowledge Base article.

Only provided fields are updated; omitted fields remain unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Updated human-readable article title (max 255 chars). Title is the primary field for title-weighted KB search and the global-note catalog.
`status`	No	Set to 'active' or 'deprecated'.
`content`	No	Updated article content (max 20000 chars).
`note_id`	Yes	The UUID of the KB article to update.
`verified`	No	Mark as human-verified (true/false).
`resource_paths`	No	Updated resource paths.
`workspace_name`	Yes	The workspace (e.g. 't-oncall').
`abstract_entities`	No	Updated entity tokens.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.4Aug 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / title

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Updated human-readable article title (max 255 chars). Title is the primary field for title-weighted KB search and the global-note catalog."
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses PATCH semantics (omitted fields unchanged), which is meaningful for a mutation tool, but says nothing about required permissions, authorization, or the side effects of changing fields like status or title. An output schema exists, so return format need not be covered.

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 short sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the partial-update constraint follows immediately. Nothing is redundant.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the essentials are present (what it does, patch semantics, a fully documented schema, and an output schema). The remaining gaps are behavioral - permissions/auth requirements and side effects on search indexing or cataloging when title/status change - which a mutation tool should ideally cover.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including lengths, enums like 'active'/'deprecated', and field meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (existing Knowledge Base article), clearly separating it from create_knowledge_base_article, delete_knowledge_base_article, and the get/list siblings. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb and by contrast with the create/delete/get siblings, and it does clarify the partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are updated; omitted fields remain unchanged'). But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives, leaving it at implied-usage level.

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

Deploy Server