Update an existing UI Action (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
Update an existing UI Action (requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: name, table, action_name, script, condition, action_type, active, form_button, list_button | |
| sys_id | Yes | UI Action 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, script, active, condition, etc.)"New value: +"Allowed fields: name, table, action_name, script, condition, action_type, active, form_button, list_button"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "action_name": {},
+ "action_type": {},
+ "active": {},
+ "condition": {},
+ "form_button": {},
+ "list_button": {},
+ "name": {},
+ "script": {},
+ "table": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true gate, which is genuinely beyond the annotations. It says nothing about whether the update is a partial merge or a full replacement, or what happens to fields omitted from the object.
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?
One short sentence with the prerequisite folded in as a parenthetical, front-loaded with the action. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical is terse enough to be slightly cryptic about how the flag is supplied.
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?
Annotations and a fully documented nested schema carry most of the burden, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. What is missing is the update semantics for the nested fields object and any indication of required permissions beyond the scripting flag.
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 described as the UI Action sys_id and the fields object enumerates all nine allowed keys. The description adds no additional meaning, 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 an existing UI Action'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_ui_action, get_ui_action and list_ui_actions that appear in the tool list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation relies on the agent reading the verb.
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 parenthetical 'requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true' is a real usage prerequisite and is the most useful part of the definition. However, there is no statement about when to choose this over create_ui_action, no note on whether the target action must already exist, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.