update_sourceRename a source or change its badge color. Omitted fields are left unchanged. Retention and deletion are deliberately not available here — use the web UI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New display name | |
| color | No | New badge color | |
| source_id | Yes | Source id from list_sources |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| setup | Yes | ||
| source | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / setup / properties / aws_region / descriptionPrevious value: -"SES region chosen on the Setup page; null until picked"New value: +"SES region, chosen on the Setup page or inferred from the confirmed SNS topic; null until then"Output schema / properties / setup / properties / launch_stack_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"CloudFormation quick-create link that provisions everything in the user's AWS account; null until a region is picked"New value: +"CloudFormation quick-create link that provisions everything in the user's AWS account; opens the console's last-used region until aws_region is set"Output schema / properties / setup / properties / launch_stack_url / typePrevious value: -[
- "string",
- "null"
-]New value: +"string"Output schema / properties / setup / properties / aws_regionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "SES region chosen on the Setup page; null until picked",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / setup / properties / launch_stack_urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "CloudFormation quick-create link that provisions everything in the user's AWS account; null until a region is picked",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / setup / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "webhook_url",
- "config_set_name",
- "sns_topic_name",
- "setup_url",
- "steps"
-]New value: +[
+ "webhook_url",
+ "config_set_name",
+ "sns_topic_name",
+ "aws_region",
+ "launch_stack_url",
+ "setup_url",
+ "steps"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent, not read-only), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: patch semantics ('Omitted fields are left unchanged') and an explicit capability boundary around retention/deletion. It stops short of stating auth or permission requirements, which keeps it below 5.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, patch behavior, and scope boundary. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundancy.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what changes, what happens to omitted fields, and what is out of scope.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that unspecified parameters are preserved rather than reset — important for interpreting two of the three optional fields. It does not add format or validation details the schema lacks.
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 first sentence names the exact mutation ('rename a source or change its badge color'), a specific verb plus the two resources it can touch. It is instantly distinguishable from siblings like create_source and list_sources, which deal with creation and enumeration rather than modification.
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?
It gives an explicit exclusion ('Retention and deletion are deliberately not available here') and routes the agent to the web UI as the alternative. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other sibling tools such as get_source_setup or create_source, and gives no prerequisites for when an update is appropriate.
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.