update_showcaseModify a Vimeo showcase's name, description, privacy, or sort order by passing only the fields to change.
Update a showcase's name, description, privacy or sort order. Only the fields you pass change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| sort | No | ||
| privacy | No | ||
| password | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| showcase_id | Yes | Showcase id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: 'Only the fields you pass change', i.e. PATCH semantics. It omits, however, any mention of the password requirement when privacy is set to 'password' and says nothing about failure modes.
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?
Two short sentences, scope front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by establishing partial-update semantics. No filler.
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 6-parameter mutation with 17% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it covers the field list and partial-update behavior but leaves the password/privacy interaction and any error or permission context unexplained.
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 only 17% — just showcase_id is documented — so the description must carry the load. It names name, description, privacy, and sort but silently omits the password parameter and gives no meaning for the two enums, leaving a functionally important parameter undocumented in both places.
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 ('Update') plus resource ('a showcase's') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can separate it from update_video, update_folder, and update_chapter by resource alone. The title is an exact restatement, so the description adds no differentiation beyond the resource name.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as update_video or update_folder for other resource types. The only usage-adjacent statement is the partial-update note, which is behavioral rather than routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.