tela

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update space

update_space

Idempotent

Patch a space's name and/or slug by passing only the fields to change; slug changes update the URL path while existing page IDs and links still resolve.

Instructions

Patch a space's name and/or slug (editor+); idempotent — pass only the field(s) you want to change. Changing the slug updates the space's URL path (existing page ids and links still resolve). To create a space use create_space, to read it use get_space, to remove it use delete_space.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	space id to patch
`name`	No	new name (omit to leave unchanged)
`slug`	No	new slug (omit to leave unchanged)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`space`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0Oct 15, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / space / properties / public_path
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: the 'editor+' authorization requirement, the partial-update contract ('pass only the field(s) you want to change'), and the non-obvious side effect that a slug change rewrites the URL path while existing page ids and links still resolve. It does repeat the idempotentHint from annotations, so it is not fully additive, but the slug/URL and auth disclosures are valuable.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, then the alternative-tool routing; every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description still covers authorization, partial-update behavior, slug side effects, and sibling routing. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 id, name, and slug are already documented, including the 'omit to leave unchanged' semantics the description restates. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('a space's name and/or slug') plus the permission tier, so an agent can distinguish it from create_space, get_space, and delete_space without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the three sibling alternatives (create_space, get_space, delete_space) and their respective operations, giving the agent a complete routing map for the space lifecycle.

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