Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
webex-mcp

webex-mcp

by yuryev89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

webex_update_message

Edit an existing Webex message by ID to update its plain text or markdown content, enabling corrections or revisions in a space.

Instructions

Edit a message.

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": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "webex_update_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoNew plain text
roomIdNoSpace ID (sometimes required)
markdownNoNew markdown
messageIdYesMessage ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
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 disclosure burden, yet it only implies mutation. It says nothing about authorization (editing only your own messages), time limits on edits, whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, or side effects — all critical for an edit operation.

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?

Four words are technically waste-free but represent under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no structure, no front-loaded constraint, and no information an agent could act on beyond the name.

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?

A mutation tool with four parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema demands substantially more than "Edit a message." Key facts — required identity of the editor, mutual exclusivity of text/markdown, and whether the edit replaces or merges content — are absent.

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 the four parameters (messageId, text, markdown, roomId) are already documented in the schema, including the odd "sometimes required" note on roomId. The description adds no meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Edit a message" restates the tool name (webex_update_message) almost verbatim, adding no scope, resource identity, or differentiation from siblings like webex_create_message or webex_delete_message. An agent learns only that some existing message is modified.

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 statement of when to use this instead of webex_create_message or webex_delete_message, no preconditions (e.g., must be the author, edit-window limits), and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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