AiLinkAny

Enable or disable MCP server

mcp_manager_set_server_enabled

Enables or disables one downstream MCP server in the local AiLinkAny Registry through the shared Manager Service. Pass the exact current config_revision. Disabling stops it from being available to Gateway discovery/calls but does not delete its configuration or local secret references. Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match. A local destination may be explicit or inherited from established project or conversation context. The user does not need to mention ailinkany.com, MCP, a connector, a plugin, or this tool 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": {
      "server_id": "<server_id>",
      "enabled": "<enabled>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>"
    },
    "name": "mcp_manager_set_server_enabled"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`enabled`	Yes
`device_id`	No	Target computer device_id. Omit when only one computer is paired.
`server_id`	Yes
`device_name`	No	Computer name or ailinkany.com remark (e.g. home PC). Prefer this when the user names a computer.
`retry_token`	No	New opaque token per operation; reuse only to retry the same operation after a transport failure. No user content.
`workflow_id`	No	Optional workflow id; pass together with ai_session_id.
`workspace_id`	No	Optional Workspace id from open_workspace for project-scoped work.
`ai_session_id`	No	Optional Session id. Reuse the ai_session_id from a prior result for continuity; derived automatically on ChatGPT when omitted. Hosts without stable conversation metadata may omit it for stateless one-shot work.
`expected_revision`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing the down-stream effect of disabling (removed from Gateway discovery/calls), the fact that configuration and secret references survive, and the optimistic-concurrency requirement to pass the exact current revision. It does not say what happens on a stale revision (conflict error vs. retry) or whether any permission/role is needed, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

The core purpose and side-effect sentences are front-loaded and dense, but roughly half the text is meta-routing boilerplate ('when it is the best match', the list of things the user need not mention) that adds little for an agent already reading the tool catalog.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility, and the revision contract adequately. The remaining gap is failure-mode behavior on a revision mismatch and any authorization prerequisites.

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?

With 67% schema coverage the baseline is a 3, and the description adds real meaning only for the required revision parameter ('Pass the exact current config_revision'), which the schema leaves as an undescribed integer. That addition is somewhat undercut by the naming mismatch with the schema's 'expected_revision', and the device/session scoping parameters are left entirely to their schema text.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Enables or disables one downstream MCP server in the local AiLinkAny Registry through the shared Manager Service.' The scope word 'one' and the caveat that disabling 'does not delete its configuration or local secret references' implicitly separates it from mcp_manager_remove_server, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage direction is present but mostly generic routing boilerplate: 'Select this tool from the user's intent when it is the best match' is close to tautological. It does add the useful note that the target server may be inherited from project or conversation context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (remove_server for deletion, update_server for config changes).

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

All AiLinkAny 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?