FeelingSurf

Update a site template

update_site_template

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a site template. Writable fields of a site template. For PATCH, provide at least one; only the fields present are changed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Resource identifier.
`name`	No	Template name.
`limits`	No	Visit caps; null means no limit.
`actions`	No	Auto-actions performed during visits.
`cookies`	No	Cookies to set before each visit; replaces the stored list.
`devices`	No	Device targeting split, as percentages summing to 100.
`browsing`	No	Browsing options.
`schedule`	No	Active-hours scheduling.
`visit_duration`	No	Visit duration range, in seconds.
`blocked_domains`	No	Domains blocked during visits.
`traffic_quality`	No	Traffic quality controls.
`traffic_sources`	No	IDs of traffic sources to assign.
`location_targeting`	No	Country/continent targeting.
`visit_distribution`	No	How visits are paced — "even" spreads them across the day, "asap" delivers as fast as possible.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 11, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / actions / properties / items / items / properties / cookie

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Present for cookie actions.",
-  "properties": {
-    "domain": {
-      "description": "Domain to set the cookie on.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "name": {
-      "description": "Cookie name.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "value": {
-      "description": "Cookie value.",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}

changedInput schema / properties / actions / properties / items / items / properties / type / description

Previous value: -"What the app does — click a link, click an RSS or sitemap link, set a cookie, scroll, or refresh."New value: +"What the app does — click a link, click an RSS or sitemap link, scroll, or refresh."

changedInput schema / properties / actions / properties / items / items / properties / type / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "click",
-  "click_rss",
-  "click_sitemap",
-  "cookie",
-  "scroll",
-  "refresh"
-]New value: +[
+  "click",
+  "click_rss",
+  "click_sitemap",
+  "scroll",
+  "refresh"
+]

addedInput schema / properties / cookies

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cookies to set before each visit; replaces the stored list.",
+  "items": {
+    "description": "A cookie set on the browser session before the visit begins.",
+    "properties": {
+      "domain": {
+        "description": "Domain to set the cookie on (a leading dot is dropped; subdomains are covered either way); null sets it on the visited site's host.",
+        "maxLength": 256,
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "description": "Cookie name.",
+        "maxLength": 256,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "value": {
+        "description": "Cookie value.",
+        "maxLength": 256,
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "name",
+      "value"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 10,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, openWorld=false, and idempotent=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by explaining merge-style PATCH behavior ('only the fields present are changed'), but it never warns that array-valued fields such as cookies replace the stored list entirely, which is exactly the destructive behavior the annotations flag.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short, and the PATCH rule is stated up front. However, the middle fragment 'Writable fields of a site template.' is content-free filler that earns no place, and the three clipped fragments read telegraphically rather than as a well-formed instruction.

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?

Given a rich 14-parameter schema with full coverage, nested objects, and annotations covering the safety profile, and given there is no output schema to explain, the description supplies the one piece of behavior it must: partial-update semantics. It omits any mention of destructive list replacement, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% across all 14 parameters, including nested objects, so the schema carries the semantics burden and the baseline is 3. The description only refers abstractly to 'writable fields' and adds no field-level meaning or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Update a site template'), which cleanly separates it from create_site_template, get_site_template, and delete_site_template. It does not, however, contrast itself with the closely related update_site sibling, so the agent still has to infer scope from the name.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The line 'For PATCH, provide at least one; only the fields present are changed' gives useful partial-update semantics and implies that at least one writable field must be supplied. There is no explicit when-to-use vs an alternative, no prerequisites, and no note on required permissions or on when to prefer update_site instead.

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

All FeelingSurf 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?