Update an existing AirPipe configuration by config_uuid (config_yaml is base64-encoded YAML) and optionally redeploy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role_uuid | No | ||
| permission | No | ||
| config_uuid | No | ||
| config_yaml | Yes | ||
| deploy_staging | No | ||
| deploy_production | No | ||
| organization_uuid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions base64 encoding and optional redeploy but does not clarify how redeploy is triggered (parameters deploy_staging/deploy_production), whether updates are destructive, or if config_uuid is required despite not being in required list.
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?
Single sentence is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads core purpose but omits essential details, making it less effective than a more organized alternative.
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?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, side effects, or return values, which is insufficient for correct tool invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only config_yaml (base64) and config_uuid (identifier) but ignores 5 other parameters (role_uuid, permission, deploy_staging, deploy_production, organization_uuid), leaving their semantics unclear.
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?
Clearly states 'Update an existing AirPipe configuration' and specifies key parameters (config_uuid, config_yaml). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like edit_config or deploy_config_revision, which may overlap in functionality.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies updating an existing config but doesn't mention when to use edit_config or deploy tools. Missing prerequisites or conditions.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, targeting either configs or modules with specific actions (create, get, list, delete, update, deploy, etc.). The only potential overlap is between edit_config and plan_config, but they serve different stages of config management (editing vs. authoring).
The naming follows a verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., create_config, delete_config, list_configs). Minor inconsistency: 'list_configs' uses plural while most others use singular (config). Overall, the pattern is predictable and clear.
With 19 tools, the count is slightly above average but justified by the need to manage two resource types (configs and modules) with full lifecycle operations including deployment, revision handling, and validation. It is well-scoped for a configuration management server.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering CRUD for both configs and modules, plus deployment, undeployment, toggling, revision management, editing via NL, planning, and validation. No obvious gaps for the intended domain.