Skip to main content
Glama

FavCRM

by io.favcrm

update_post

Idempotent

Update an existing CMS post (any post type). Only provided fields are changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNoCustom field values; merged shallowly with existing meta. Use this for structured data, not excerpt.
slugNoURL slug (must be unique per company+type).
typeNoChange post type (e.g. blog_post → treatment). Slug is re-checked for uniqueness under the new type.
titleNoPost title
blocksNoReplaces the entire ordered block array. Use append_post_block / replace_post_block / remove_post_block / reorder_post_blocks for per-block edits. Each block: { id, version, type, data }. Types: paragraph, heading, image, list, quote, code, divider, spacer, embed, html, youtube, file, faq, callout, gallery, cta, accordion, product, columns.
postIdYesThe post ID
statusNoPost status
tagIdsNoTag IDs to sync (replaces existing tags)
excerptNoPlain-text summary only — never JSON. Omit to leave unchanged.
parentIdNoParent post ID for nested types.
seoTitleNoSEO title override
sortOrderNoSort order (lower = earlier)
visibilityNoVisibility
categoryIdsNoCategory IDs
publishedAtNoPublish timestamp (ISO 8601)
featuredImageNoCover image URL
seoDescriptionNoSEO description override

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesTool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
summaryYesOne-line human-readable summary of the action
renderTypeYesUI rendering hint for the result

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already covering read/write and destructive hints, the description adds the key behavioral trait that only provided fields are changed (partial update). It does not describe edge cases like type changes, but those are covered in schema parameter descriptions. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, 19 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex tool with 17 params and a rich schema, the description is terse but sufficient: it states purpose and partial-update behavior, while the schema documents each parameter and the output schema covers return values. It doesn't mention block-level alternatives in prose, but the schema's blocks field does, so completeness is adequate.

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 all 17 parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the overall partial-update semantics; it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update'), resource ('existing CMS post'), and scope ('any post type'). It also specifies the partial-update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed'), distinguishing it from create/delete post and from block-level mutation tools.

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 description implies use for whole-post updates and notes partial updates, but does not explicitly name alternatives like append_post_block for block editing. Context from the schema's blocks parameter does provide that guidance, but the description itself only offers clear context without explicit exclusions.

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

All FavCRM toolsInspect
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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping boundaries, such as generate_post_cover/attach_post_cover_from_job/upload_post_cover_from_url, update_deal/update_deal_stage/mark_deal_won/mark_deal_lost, and booking status transitions (confirm/cancel/complete/mark_no_show). The catch-all execute_tool adds further ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case convention (create_*, list_*, get_*, update_*, delete_*, restore_*). Minor exceptions like 'clone' and 'execute_tool' are still readable and do not significantly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 223 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped. Even for a full CRM platform, this many tools overwhelms context windows and makes tool selection impractical. It far exceeds the reasonable range for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The surface is broad but has notable gaps: no update_booking/delete_booking, no delete_product, no send_message/send_campaign (referenced but absent), and no delete_staff/resource. Some workflows dead-end or require manual approval steps.

Resources