Update an existing scoped application (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update an existing scoped application (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, version, short_description, description, vendor, active, logo | |
| sys_id | Yes | App 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 (name, version, short_description, description, active, vendor, etc.)"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, version, short_description, description, vendor, active, logo"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "active": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "logo": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "short_description": {},
+ "vendor": {},
+ "version": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the important WRITE_ENABLED environmental prerequisite, but it does not clarify partial-update semantics, what happens to omitted fields, or the response behavior.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is concise, but its structure is minimal and could benefit from clearer separation between the action and the prerequisite.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description provides the key WRITE_ENABLED guard. It nevertheless omits important update behavior, such as whether the fields object performs a partial update or replacement and what the returned result looks like.
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%, and the schema documents the allowed fields object and sys_id. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing scoped application.' The word 'existing' implies modification rather than creation, but the description does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like create_scoped_app, get_scoped_app, or list_scoped_apps.
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 description includes a useful prerequisite, 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true,' and implies use when modifying an existing scoped app. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_scoped_app, get_scoped_app, or other update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.