Update an existing client script (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
Update an existing client script (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, table, type, script, field_name, active, global | |
| sys_id | Yes | Client script sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Fields to update (script, active, name, type, etc.)"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, table, type, script, field_name, active, global"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "active": {},
+ "field_name": {},
+ "global": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "script": {},
+ "table": {},
+ "type": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, non-destructiveness, and open-world scope, so the description's main added value is the SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true gate. It omits whether the script executes immediately on save, how partial updates behave for fields not supplied, and permission requirements beyond the flag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single parenthetical clause; nothing is wasted and the prerequisite is placed inline rather than buried. It is arguably too terse for what it leaves out, but the structure itself is tight and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With full schema coverage and rich annotations and no output schema, the minimal gaps are tolerable, but an agent still lacks any indication of environment requirements beyond the flag, side effects of updating a live script, or how partial field objects are merged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including an explicit allowed-field list for the nested 'fields' object and a description for sys_id, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond it, which meets the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing client script'), which distinguishes it clearly from get_client_script and create_client_script by name alone. It does not explicitly contrast with the many other update_* siblings, but the resource noun is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only guidance is a prerequisite flag ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'); it never says when to use this versus create_client_script, get_client_script, or update_script_include, nor what happens if the flag is false. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.