KernelScan

update_product

Update a product owned by the caller. Re-runs analysis if the kernel_version, arch, or referenced .config changed.

    To change the .config, first POST the new file to
    ``/api/configs/uploads`` (see ``create_product`` for the curl recipe)
    and pass the returned ``config_upload_id`` here. Leave
    ``config_upload_id`` as ``None`` to keep the existing .config.
    ``factor_ids=None`` leaves factor selections untouched; an empty
    list clears them. Same tier gates as PUT /api/products/{id}.

    A change that re-runs analysis (``kernel_version``, ``arch``, or the
    ``.config``) spends one unit of the team's shared monthly analysis
    allowance and can fail with the same durable "Monthly analysis limit
    reached … [429]" quota error as ``create_product`` (distinct from the
    transient rate-limit 429 — don't retry it). A rename / description /
    factor-only edit runs no analysis and is free; the product's VEX is re-evaluated
    against the new factors in the background (not metered), so ``get_product`` /
    ``get_product_vex`` show the new verdicts a few seconds later.

    ``kernel_version`` takes the same forms as in ``create_product``: a
    stable version, or a CIP release / full ``uname -r`` such as
    ``4.19.325-cip136-rt50``, whose ``-cipN`` counter decides which CIP
    fixes apply. A changed version string the analysis cannot read fails
    with 400 and changes nothing; re-sending the stored value is always
    accepted. A CIP release must stay on the base its ``.config`` header
    names: whichever of the two the update changes is checked against the
    other ([400], before the upload is consumed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arch`	No
`name`	No
`factor_ids`	No
`product_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`kernel_version`	No
`config_upload_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden — and it does: discloses the metered analysis allowance, distinguishes durable quota 429 from transient rate-limit 429 with retry guidance ('don't retry it'), explains async VEX re-evaluation timing, and that a rename is free. This is rich, actionable context beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core purpose then layers side-effects, dependencies, and edge cases. Long but every section earns its place; could tighten slightly, but density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers the dependency chain (upload then reference), metering and quota semantics, async side-effects, validation failure modes (400 on unreadable version, CIP base mismatch checked before upload consumed), and cross-sibling behavior. Complete for a 7-param mutation with no annotations or output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does per-parameter: kernel_version accepted forms (stable version, CIP release, uname -r) and that -cipN selects fixes; config_upload_id=None keeps existing; factor_ids=None preserves vs. empty list clears. Each semantic is non-obvious from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Update a product owned by the caller') and immediately distinguishes which fields trigger side effects vs. which are free. Does not explicitly contrast with create_product, but the dependency chain (upload config, then pass id) implies the relationship.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when/when-not guidance: when to POST a .config to uploads first, when to leave config_upload_id as None, when factor_ids=None vs empty list, and what triggers analysis vs. not. Names the alternative for config upload ('see create_product for the curl recipe').

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

All KernelScan 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?