Update a provider credential. Changing provider or api_endpoint on a credential with a stored key requires api_key in the same call, so a stored key never moves to a new provider or endpoint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | Required when provider or api_endpoint changes and a key is stored | |
| provider | No | ||
| api_version | No | ||
| api_endpoint | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_key / descriptionAdded value: +"Required when provider or api_endpoint changes and a key is stored"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious invariant (a stored key never moves to a new provider or endpoint), but that same conditional requirement already appears in the api_key schema description, and the description says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what an update actually affects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint following. The second sentence is long but carries the important guardrail, so every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description covers the most important guardrail but leaves provider naming, api_version semantics, and post-update effects undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description should be compensating more than it does. It clarifies the conditional role of api_key (largely echoing the schema) but adds no meaning for id, provider, api_version, or api_endpoint formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update a provider credential'), which is unambiguous against siblings like provider_credentials_create/delete/get/list. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, but 'update' is self-explanatory within that family, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives one conditional usage rule (changing provider/api_endpoint on a stored-key credential requires api_key in the same call), which is real guidance for a caller. However, it never states when to use this tool versus provider_credentials_create or delete, nor any prerequisites such as needed permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.