DB Planner

Update document

update_document

Destructive

Update a document's name and/or content. Omit a field to leave it unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No	"dbml" for a database schema (the default), "mermaid" for a diagram. Name the file to match: .dbml for a schema, .mmd for a diagram.
`name`	No	New file name; omit to keep it.
`docId`	Yes	Document id (uuid).
`order`	No	New sort position; omit to keep it.
`content`	No	Replacement document text; omit to keep it.
`projectId`	Yes	Project id (uuid).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`order`	No
`content`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With destructiveHint=true already signaling mutation, the description adds useful partial-update semantics: 'Omit a field to leave it unchanged.' It does not expand on irreversibility, permissions, or the fact that content replacement is a full overwrite, but annotations lower the burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the operation and the key partial-update behavior. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is minimally adequate for a simple update operation, but it leaves gaps: it does not mention that kind and order are also updatable, and it gives no routing information relative to reorder_documents or delete_document. The output schema and annotations cover some other context, lowering the burden on the description.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description's 'omit a field' guidance adds a small layer of meaning, but it also omits two updatable fields (kind and order), reducing its value as a summary.

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 a document's name and/or content.' This distinguishes it from create_document and delete_document at a basic level. However, it mentions only name and content while the schema also allows updating kind and order, so the stated scope is incomplete.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings like reorder_documents or delete_document. The only usage hint is 'Omit a field to leave it unchanged,' which addresses parameter semantics rather than tool selection.

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

All DB Planner tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions clearly explain boundaries. However, list_diagrams/list_documents and get_board/get_board_image are two pairs that both concern the same underlying resource, so an agent could initially select the wrong one without reading carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names are snake_case verb_noun pairs such as create_project, update_document, and unpublish_listing, which is very consistent. The exceptions are bare 'draw' and the non-pattern 'whoami', so it is not a perfect 5.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, the surface exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans orgs, projects, documents, board drawing, membership, and marketplace publishing. While each subdomain is individually reasonable, the aggregate is heavy and likely to overwhelm an agent; several related actions could be grouped or exposed more sparingly.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: org/project/document CRUD, board rendering and editing, member management, and template publish/use/update. Minor gaps remain—there is no get_project single-resource read, and groups/links/notes are manipulated only through the generic update_board rather than dedicated tools—but these are workable.

Resources

Need Help?