Enoki

Change a target's profile

update_target_profile

DestructiveIdempotent

Change content fields of a target's profile by name. Pass them in changes, for example {"purpose": "...", "forbidden_actions": ["..."]}. A field left out stays as it is. Null empties text that may be empty (system_prompt, user_access, test_account, public_data) and sets multi_agent or has_persistent_memory back to unknown; any other field needs a value. A list is replaced whole, so send every line to keep. A tool is {name, description, parameters}, a user type {name, auth_level, description}. Only what the change alters becomes the customer's; it applies at once, and the profile's history records the key that made it, or for a connected app the person who connected it. Pass the profile_id and version from get_target_profile; leave both out to create the profile of a target that has none. Each tool and user type needs its own name. Ids, who wrote what and dismissals cannot be written, and a value that still holds an [UNTRUSTED:…] fence is refused: send the text between the fence tags, and a tool's parameters as an object. A value sent back unchanged stays as it is. Returns the profile's id and new version. Requires the write scope.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`changes`	Yes	Content fields to change, by name: every field auto-discovery merges. A field left out stays as it is. Null empties text that may be empty (system_prompt, user_access, test_account, public_data) and sets multi_agent or has_persistent_memory back to unknown; any other field needs a value. A list is replaced whole, so send every item to keep. Only what the change alters becomes the customer's.
`version`	No
`model_id`	Yes
`profile_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`version`	Yes	The profile's version now; send it with the next change.
`model_id`	Yes
`profile_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent, non-readOnly): it discloses that omitted fields are untouched, null clearing rules per field, whole-list replacement, ownership transfer to the customer, immediate application, history attribution, rejection of [UNTRUSTED:…] values, and the write scope requirement. These are exactly the mutation-side effects an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the `changes` example before edge cases. It is a dense single block, though, with null rules, list replacement, fence handling and versioning packed together with no grouping, which makes it slower to scan than it could be.

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?

For a destructive, nested-object mutation tool, it covers semantics, prerequisites, creation path, validation rejections and the return value ('Returns the profile's id and new version'), so an output schema's presence is complemented rather than required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 25%, but the description compensates heavily: it defines the three parameter groups (profile_id, version, model_id, changes), explains omission vs null per field, defines the {name, description, parameters} tool shape and {name, auth_level, description} user-type shape, and requires turning tool parameters into an object. This adds meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Change content fields of a target's profile by name') and immediately scopes behavior to the `changes` object. It is clearly distinguishable from get_target_profile (read) and confirm_target_profile (approve) by its mutation semantics and its note that omitting ids creates a profile for a target that has none.

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?

Gives concrete usage instructions: pass profile_id and version from get_target_profile, or leave both out to create a profile for a target that lacks one. It also states prerequisites ('Requires the write scope'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Enoki tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?