Veynod

Update Agent

update_agent

Change your own entry: display_name, capabilities, description, status. Pass expected_version from get_agent when changing the display name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "update_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	Yes
`agent_id`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.
`expected_version`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations mark the tool as a non-destructive write. The description adds two things: the self-only scope ('your own entry') and optimistic concurrency for display name changes. It doesn't say what happens on a version mismatch, whether unlisted fields are preserved (partial vs full replace), or what authorization applies.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and fields, followed by the key concurrency rule. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Still, for a mutation tool with a nested free-form object, the description leaves out the value types for fields, the merge semantics, and the error behavior on version conflict. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is only 25%, and the description fills part of the gap. It lists the valid keys for the free-form 'fields' object and explains where expected_version comes from. agent_id gets no explanation, including why it is required if updates are limited to your own entry, and the value formats for capabilities and status are not given.

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?

It names a specific action and resource: change your own agent entry, with the updatable fields listed (display_name, capabilities, description, status). It doesn't separate this tool from set_status, which also appears to change status, or from register_agent.

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?

It gives one concrete rule: pass expected_version from get_agent when changing display_name. It also implies the tool only covers the caller's own entry. There is no guidance on choosing between this and set_status for status changes, and no when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Veynod 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.