killbottleneck-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_page

Replace an existing page's full HTML and/or title using its page ID; the prior version is retained so users can restore it.

Instructions

Replace the HTML and/or the title of an existing page (page_id from list_pages). Send the WHOLE new document, not a diff; the previous version is kept and the user can restore it.

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": {
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	No	the whole new HTML document
`title`	No
`page_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well on the crucial points: it is a full-document overwrite ('WHOLE new document, not a diff') and the previous version is retained and user-restorable. It leaves out permission requirements and what happens if page_id is invalid or missing.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the critical whole-document constraint and the reversibility guarantee. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, overwrite semantics, and reversibility. The remaining gap is optionality/partial-update behavior for title and html, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that html must be the entire document and where page_id comes from, but says nothing about whether title is optional or whether providing only title preserves the HTML, leaving a real gap on a low-coverage schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (replace) and precise resource (HTML and/or title of an existing page), and the parenthetical 'page_id from list_pages' implies the split from create_page. Differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than stated outright, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The word 'existing' and the pointer to list_pages for IDs imply this is the modify path rather than create, but the description never explicitly says when to choose it over create_page or delete_page. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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