Baasix MCP Server

baasix_update_item

Update an existing item in a collection by specifying its ID and new data. Correct or change records without recreating entries.

Instructions

Update an existing item in a collection

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": {
      "collection": "<collection>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "baasix_update_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Item ID
`data`	Yes	Updated item data
`collection`	Yes	Collection name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.7Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation mutates an existing item, but does not explain whether 'data' is a partial update or a full replacement, what happens if the item is missing, authorization requirements, or any side effects. This is too thin for a write operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is so minimal that it leaves behavioral and usage gaps for other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not convey merge/replace semantics, return behavior, error conditions, or the need for a previously fetched item. An agent could guess the arguments but lacks key context for correct invocation.

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%, so each parameter already has a basic description. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it does not clarify the expected shape of nested 'data' or how it relates to the collection. This is acceptable but not additive.

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?

The description clearly names the action ('Update') and the resource ('an existing item in a collection'), which distinguishes it from create/get/list/delete item tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling update tools or state the intended scope beyond the obvious.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like baasix_create_item or baasix_update_template. It only states the basic action and implies the item must already exist, but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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

Deploy Server