Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Buffer MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update a content item's title or target date

update_content_item
Destructive

Update a content item's title or target date; omitted fields keep their current values. Requires explicit confirmation before applying the change.

Instructions

Update a content item's title or target date. Fields that are omitted keep their current value.

This API is an early preview and can change without a deprecation period.. Current Buffer GraphQL updateContentItem. Requires explicit confirmation. Use upstream fields to bound data; provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoThe content item to update.
titleNoOmit to preserve the existing title. Null clears it.
fieldsNoUpstream field paths relative to the result, as in official CLI --fields. Default fields are bounded. Use items.id for connection nodes; pageInfo.endCursor for cursors.
accountNoPrivate account profile name. Selects credentials only; an organization default does not restrict provider token permissions.
confirmNoSet true only when the user asked for exactly this action.
payloadNoComplete native input object instead of individual input fields.
targetDateNoOmit to preserve the existing target date. Null clears it.
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON input file, no symlink, at most 1 MiB; cannot mix with payload or individual input fields.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirm / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true for this exact user-requested Buffer mutation."New value: +"Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action."
  2. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: omitted fields retain current values, an early-preview instability warning that changes can land without a deprecation period, and the 'provider errors are failures even with HTTP 200' caveat.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and earns its place, but the middle is sloppy: a stray double period ('period.. Current Buffer GraphQL updateContentItem.') and an internal implementation name that reads like a leaked artifact rather than useful guidance. The preview warning and confirmation note are valuable but poorly integrated.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the key missing pieces: confirmation requirement, field-preservation semantics, and the preview instability caveat. The only omission is explicit routing against the draft-update sibling.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 8 parameters, including the nested payload object and payload_file exclusivity rules, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is documented, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (update) and resource (content item) plus the exact updatable fields (title, target date). It distinguishes itself from update_content_item_draft by naming the concrete fields, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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 description says 'Requires explicit confirmation' and warns about provider errors with HTTP 200, which implies preconditions, but it never states when to prefer this tool over update_content_item_draft or the generic graphql_mutation. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools