HAOps MCP Server

haops_edit_message

Edit an existing message in a discussion thread to correct typos or update information. Only the message author can make changes.

Instructions

Edit an existing message in a discussion thread. Only the message author can edit. Useful for correcting typos or updating information.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "discussionId": "<discussionId>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "haops_edit_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	New message content. Markdown formatting is recommended.
`verbose`	No	If true, return the full API response instead of the compact summary (default: false)
`messageId`	Yes	UUID of the message to edit
`contentType`	No	Content format (optional, default: markdown)
`projectSlug`	Yes	The project slug (URL identifier)
`discussionId`	Yes	UUID of the discussion thread

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.8.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the author can edit, which is a critical behavioral trait, but omits side effects, error handling, or response format details.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences and no extraneous information, efficiently conveying purpose and a key constraint.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and a constraint but lacks details on response, errors, or behavior beyond author restriction.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The description does not explain parameter usage beyond the generic purpose.

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 clearly states 'Edit an existing message in a discussion thread' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like haops_post_message (create) and haops_delete_message (delete) by specifying the edit action.

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?

It provides usage context ('Useful for correcting typos or updating information') and a key constraint ('Only the message author can edit'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server