Baasix MCP Server

baasix_update_schema

Update an existing collection's schema in Baasix to modify data structure and validation rules.

Instructions

Update an existing collection schema

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>",
      "schema": "<schema>"
    },
    "name": "baasix_update_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`schema`	Yes	Updated schema definition
`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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing collection schema' conveys only that this is a mutation operation, with no mention of whether it replaces or merges the schema, whether data is affected, whether validation occurs, or what the consequences are.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to missing behavioral and usage context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain update behavior, potential destructive impact on data, whether the new schema fully replaces the old one, or any prerequisites beyond the two parameters.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions, so the schema already provides baseline semantic coverage. The tool description does not add any additional parameter context, such as schema format, allowed structure, or update semantics.

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 states the verb 'update' and the resource 'existing collection schema,' making the tool's core purpose clear. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like create_schema and delete_schema via the word 'existing,' though it does not name any alternatives explicitly.

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 about when to use this tool versus create_schema, delete_schema, or update_item. The word 'existing' implies it is not for creating or deleting, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or excluded scenarios are provided.

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

Deploy Server