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?
No annotations provided. The description mentions optional redeployment but lacks details on side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior when config_uuid doesn't exist. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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?
One concise sentence conveying the core purpose, key constraint (by config_uuid), encoding detail, and optional redeployment. No verbose or redundant content.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. The agent lacks information on how to correctly populate the request (e.g., which params are conditional, order, defaults).
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical context for one parameter ('config_yaml is base64-encoded YAML'), but other parameters like 'role_uuid', 'permission', 'deploy_staging', and 'deploy_production' remain unexplained. Partial compensation.
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?
The description states the verb 'update' and the resource 'AirPipe configuration', with a specific identifying field 'config_uuid' and encoding detail 'base64-encoded YAML'. It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'edit_config'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_config' or 'deploy_config_revision'. No mention of prerequisites or scenarios.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource (config or module) and action (create, read, update, delete, deploy, etc.), with clear descriptions that avoid overlap. No two tools appear to perform the same function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_config, list_modules), with occasional specificity like deploy_config_revision. No mixing of conventions or unexpected naming.
At 19 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a configuration management server covering CRUD, deployment, revision history, validation, and planning. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of configurations and modules (create, read, update, delete, deploy, undeploy, toggle, validate, plan, edit). Minor gaps like bulk operations or search are absent but not critical for the domain.