Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MongoDB MCP

MongoDB MCP

by vishnuweb-a
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_document

Update documents in a MongoDB collection by matching a filter query and applying provided update data.

Instructions

Update matching document.

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_name": "<collection_name>",
      "filter_query": "<filter_query>",
      "update_data": "<update_data>"
    },
    "name": "update_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
update_dataYes
filter_queryYes
collection_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update matching document,' which merely restates the tool's purpose. It does not state whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether multiple documents can be updated, if authentication is needed, or what the return value is.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is very short (four words), but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it provides no information beyond what the tool name implies, and it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with 3 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to disclose merge vs replace behavior, return values, or any operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal parameter meaning. 'matching' hints at filter_query usage, but it does not explain the format or semantics of update_data, filter_query, or collection_name. For a 3-param tool with no schema descriptions, this is insufficient.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Update matching document.' It indicates an update operation on documents, but it does not differentiate from siblings like find_document or insert_document beyond the verb.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_document, insert_document, or delete_document, nor any prerequisites for updating documents.

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