TypeWriter MCP

update_entry

Update a single field of a storyline entry by specifying its dotted path (e.g., 'text', 'speaker'). Works for pages, dialogues, facts, and triggers.

Instructions

Update a single field of an entry by dotted path (e.g. 'text', 'speaker', 'criteria.0.value').

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": {
      "page": "<page>",
      "entryId": "<entryId>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "update_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`value`	No
`entryId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action and path format but does not explain overwriting behavior, handling of non-existent paths, value type constraints, or return values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with an illustrative example, which is efficient and front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while still conveying the core mechanism.

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?

As a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for safe use. It lacks details about errors, edge cases, or what the update does if the path is invalid, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke with full confidence.

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?

The description adds meaning to the 'path' parameter with examples like 'criteria.0.value', clarifying dotted-path syntax. However, it provides no semantics for 'page', 'entryId', or 'value', and the schema itself has zero descriptions, leaving most parameters under-specified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'update' and resource 'entry' with scope 'single field' and 'dotted path', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like replace_entry and add_entry. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'single field' implies partial modification, suggesting when to use this tool over replace_entry (which likely replaces the whole entry). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary conditions, so it falls short of full guidance.

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

Deploy Server