Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Claude-Code MCP Runner

Claude-Code MCP Runner

by DeamonDev888
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_agent_config

Update a Claude Code agent's configuration, including its model, MCP server list, and environment variables.

Instructions

Modifie la configuration technique d'un agent (Modèle, Serveurs MCP, Variables d'environnement)

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_agent_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envNoVariables d'environnement supplémentaires à définir ou écraser (ex: { 'API_KEY': '123' })
nameYesNom de l'agent à modifier
modelNoNouveau modèle à utiliser. Supporte tous les modèles compatibles avec Claude Code (Anthropic, OpenAI, DeepSeek, Glm, Minimax, etc.). Ex: claude-sonnet-4-5, gpt-4, deepseek-chat
mcpServersNoListe complète des serveurs MCP à activer (remplace la liste existante). Ex: ['postgresql', 'news']

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'modifies configuration' without explaining mutation details, idempotency, error behavior, or prerequisites 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose without extraneous words.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. Missing return value, error scenarios, and update semantics (partial vs full replacement).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond listing the parameter categories already evident from the schema names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool modifies an agent's technical configuration, listing the specific aspects (Model, MCP Servers, Environment Variables). It distinguishes from siblings like create_agent and delete_agent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_agent or run_agent. Sibling tools are not referenced, and no context for decision-making is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools