Update a script include (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
Update a script include (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, script, api_name, access, active | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the script include |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Key-value pairs to update"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, script, api_name, access, active"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "access": {},
+ "active": {},
+ "api_name": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "script": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the mutation profile. The description adds the SCRIPTING_ENABLED feature-flag prerequisite, which is real context beyond annotations, but does not describe side effects, permission scope, or what the result looks like.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the action, the resource, and the prerequisite. Nothing to trim and no ambiguity introduced.
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 simple two-parameter partial-update tool with a fully documented nested fields object and no output schema, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs to call it. Only return/side-effect behavior is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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%: sys_id is documented and the fields object enumerates allowed keys (name, script, api_name, access, active) with additionalProperties=false. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update a script include'), so the agent knows exactly what object is modified. It does not differentiate from siblings like create_script_include, get_script_include, or update_client_script, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true' parenthetical is a genuine precondition for invocation, which is useful implied usage guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or exclusion criteria among the many sibling update_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.