update_scopeUpdate a scope's information by its ID. Modify optional fields like name, description, settings, or extra data to keep tenant records current.
Actualiza los datos de un scope por id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID del scope | |
| name | No | ||
| extra | No | ||
| settings | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description gives no information about side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or consequences of updating a scope. The behavior is completely opaque.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but lacks detail that could be included without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the complexity of the parameters (nested objects like extra and settings) and the surrounding scope-management context, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what a scope is, what the nested fields mean, or what happens after the update.
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?
The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. Only the 'id' parameter has a schema description; the other four parameters (name, extra, settings, description) are undocumented, and the tool description does not clarify their purpose or constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the action (update) and the resource (scope by id), distinguishing it from other tools like create_scope or delete_scope. However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't specify which fields are updatable, though the schema provides them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_oauth_scope or save_scope. The description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.