Doco

Doco Update Document

doco_update_document

DestructiveIdempotent

Write a document's complete content back in Markdown, HTML, or TipTap JSON. Version-protected writes avoid overwriting concurrent changes, and anchor comments keep unchanged block IDs stable.

Instructions

整篇写回文档正文。markdown 写回凭锚点保留未改动块 ID（配合 doco_get_document 的 annotate=anchors）；tiptap-json 为整篇无损替换。强烈建议带 base_version，409 时重读合并重试。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	Yes	正文格式
`content`	No	markdown / html 正文文本
`document`	No	tiptap-json 文档对象
`document_id`	Yes	Target document ID.
`base_version`	No	读取时拿到的 version（强烈建议提供）

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

在destructiveHint=true和idempotentHint=true的基础上，描述进一步补充了具体机制：markdown写入如何保留未改动块ID、tiptap-json整篇替换、版本冲突时的合并重试建议，这些是注解未覆盖的行为细节，对调用者判断副作用和恢复策略非常有价值。

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?

三句话覆盖核心操作、格式行为和版本建议，信息高度浓缩，无冗余词汇，关键约束（整篇、base_version）前置，结构清晰利落。

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

Completeness4/5

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

面对5个参数、3种格式、锚点机制和409冲突场景，描述覆盖了调用所需的核心要点：格式差异、冲突应对和版本建议。但缺少对无锚点情况的说明以及与批量/局部编辑工具的边界提醒，略有遗漏。

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

Parameters4/5

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

输入schema对5个参数100%覆盖，提供了基本描述，因此基线为3。描述额外强调了base_version的关键性和format的行为差异，帮助调用者理解参数选择与组合使用，但未明确content/document与format的对应关系，略逊于完美。

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?

描述以'整篇写回文档正文'明确表达了动词和资源，直接说明这是全文更新操作，与patch_block、insert_blocks、delete_block等局部编辑工具形成明显区分。'整篇'一词强调了作用范围，不存在歧义。

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

描述了不同format下的使用方式（markdown锚点保留、tiptap-json无损替换），并强烈建议带base_version及409冲突后的重试策略，提供了清晰的使用上下文。但未显式说明何时不应用此工具而改用其他编辑兄弟工具，缺少明确的排除条件。

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