Create a node integration in Remnawave by supplying a name, config, and optional description to connect nodes to the panel.
POST /api/node-integrations Create Node Integration Tags: Node Integrations Controller
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| confirm | No | Подтверждение выполнения не-GET операции. Без confirm:true возвращается превью запроса (метод, URL, тело) и запрос не отправляется (см. MCP_CONFIRM). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses nothing beyond the HTTP verb — no auth requirements, no side effects, no mention of the two-phase confirm preview behavior documented only in the schema's 'confirm' param. A POST create with a required untyped 'config' object deserves far more behavioral context.
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?
'POST /api/node-integrations / Create Node Integration / Tags: Node Integrations Controller' is essentially three restatements of the same fact plus an auto-generated tag line. It's short but the content is redundant scaffolding, not front-loaded useful information.
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?
A mutation tool with a nested body, no annotations, no output schema, and 50% param coverage. Nothing explains the confirm/preview protocol, the shape of 'config', or what success returns. The definition is barely adequate to disambiguate the endpoint.
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 50%; only the 'confirm' param has a description (in Russian, explaining the preview gate). The description adds zero parameter meaning — it never mentions name, config, description, or confirm. For a nested body object with an open-ended additionalProperties config, this is a real gap.
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 restates the tool name ('Create Node Integration') plus the HTTP method and path, which gives a clear verb+resource but no differentiation from siblings like node_integration_update_integration or node_integration_get_all_integrations. It's a bare CRUD-create statement with no indication of what a 'node integration' actually is.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of the confirm/preview flow that the schema itself hints at. The agent gets no routing help among the many node_* and node_integration_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.