Skip to main content
Glama
CoveoSec
by CoveoSec

authentication_settings_update

Update existing authentication settings for SAML SSO, including default role, domain, and IdP attribute mappings.

Instructions

Update authentication settings

Update existing authentication settings. To update the default domain, include empty value for both current_domain_value and new_domain_value.

You must have Instance Administrator permissions to run this endpoint.

[POST /public_api/v1/authentication-settings/update] · Authentication settings

Example request body:

{
  "request_data": {
    "name": "str",
    "default_role": "",
    "is_account_role": false,
    "domain": " ",
    "mappings": {
      "email": "str",
      "firstname": "str",
      "lastname": "str",
      "group_name": "str"
    },
    "advanced_settings": {
      "relay_state": " ",
      "idp_single_logout_url": " ",
      "service_provider_public_cert": " ",
      "service_provider_private_key": " ",
      "authn_context_enabled": " ",
      "force_authn": false
    },
    "idp_sso_url": " ",
    "idp_certificate": " ",
    "idp_issuer": " ",
    "metadata_url": " "
  }
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_dataYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the required 'Instance Administrator' permission and the special empty-value behavior for domain updates. It does not explain the effect on unspecified settings, reversibility, or error behavior, leaving important behavioral gaps.

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 description is structured with a clear intro, permission note, and endpoint line, followed by a detailed example body. The example is lengthy and somewhat repetitive with the schema, and the opening sentence repeats the tool name, but overall it is reasonably organized and not excessively verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has a complex nested request body, no annotations, and no output schema. The description includes an example body and a special case, but lacks explanation of return values, error handling, or the meaning of many fields. This makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example request body shows the structure and placeholder values, but does not explain the meaning of most parameters. Only the current_domain_value and new_domain_value special case adds substantive parameter semantics, so the description falls short.

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?

The description clearly states the tool updates existing authentication settings, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'existing' settings, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like create or delete.

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?

Provides context that this is for updating existing settings and includes a specific use case (updating default domain with empty values). It also notes required permissions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like authentication_settings_create or delete, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CoveoSec/xsiam-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server