mcp-creatio

Set system setting values

set-sys-settings-value

DestructiveIdempotent

Updates values for one or more existing Creatio system settings in a single request and returns the platform response; confirm changes that affect instance-wide behavior with the user.

Instructions

Set the values of one or more existing system settings in one request; returns the platform's answer. System settings can change how the whole instance behaves — confirm the change with the user.

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": {
      "sysSettingsValues": "<sysSettingsValues>"
    },
    "name": "set-sys-settings-value"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sysSettingsValues`	Yes	New values by setting code, e.g. { "UsrMaxRetries": 5, "UsrFeatureOn": true, "UsrSenderName": "Support" }.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.0Oct 25, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / sysSettingsValues / description

Previous value: -"Map of system setting codes to their new values. Accepts any JSON-compatible types (string, number, boolean, object, array).\n\nExamples:\n- Single setting: { 'SettingCode': 'value' }\n- Multiple settings: { 'SettingCode1': 'value1', 'SettingCode2': 123, 'SettingCode3': true }\n- Mixed types: { 'EmailEnabled': true, 'MaxRetries': 5, 'ApiKey': 'secret' }"New value: +"New values by setting code, e.g. { \"UsrMaxRetries\": 5, \"UsrFeatureOn\": true, \"UsrSenderName\": \"Support\" }."

First observedv0.6.5Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes beyond them by naming the blast radius (instance-wide behavior change) and prescribing user confirmation — exactly the context a write tool needs. It stops short of describing partial-failure behavior or required permissions.

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?

Two compact clauses, with the action and scope front-loaded before the safety warning. The trailing "returns the platform's answer" is low-value filler but the rest earns its place.

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 destructive, single-parameter nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, batch nature, and the confirmation requirement. Missing are edge-case semantics (invalid codes, partial application) and permission requirements, but the annotation set already carries the safety profile.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema itself supplies a concrete example map with mixed value types, so the parameter is already well documented. The description adds only the "one or more existing" framing (batch + key-must-exist), which is useful but marginal against the baseline.

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 ("Set the values of one or more existing system settings") and signals batch semantics plus the constraint that settings must already exist. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like update-sys-setting-definition or create-sys-setting, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"System settings can change how the whole instance behaves — confirm the change with the user" gives a real usage caution, which is more than nothing. But it never says when to pick this over update-sys-setting-definition, set-feature-state, or create-sys-setting, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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