Skip to main content
Glama
Fistacho

ha-nexus-agent

by Fistacho
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Update category

labels_update_category
Destructive

Update a category's name or icon within a registry scope. Only provided fields change, so omitted ones keep their current value.

Instructions

Update fields on an existing category.

Calls WS config/category_registry/update; only the parameters you pass are sent, so omitted fields keep their current value.

Use when: renaming a category or changing its icon within its scope. Returns: the updated category registry dict. Errors: on a WS failure, returns {"error": "<message>"} instead of raising.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iconNoNew mdi icon identifier; omit to leave the current icon unchanged.
nameNoNew display name; omit to leave the current name unchanged.
scopeYesRegistry scope the category belongs to, e.g. 'automation'.
category_idYesCategory registry ID to update; obtain it from labels_list_categories.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.25.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_id / description
      Added value: +"Category registry ID to update; obtain it from labels_list_categories."
    • addedInput schema / properties / icon / description
      Added value: +"New mdi icon identifier; omit to leave the current icon unchanged."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"New display name; omit to leave the current name unchanged."
    • addedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Added value: +"Registry scope the category belongs to, e.g. 'automation'."
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/non-readOnly, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: partial-patch semantics (only passed fields are sent), the backing WS call, and a non-raising error contract. It does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive, so it falls short of a 5.

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-loaded with purpose, then implementation note, usage, return, and error in labeled sections. Efficient overall; the WS endpoint detail is slightly more than an agent needs but it is well organized.

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 four-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the parts the schema cannot: patch behavior, error handling, and the return shape. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 each property already documents 'omit to leave unchanged', so the description's patch-semantics note largely restates the schema. Some added value comes from framing the update as a whole, but the schema carries the parameter detail.

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 fields on an existing category') and adds the underlying WS endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what operation runs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby labels_update_label sibling, leaving that inference to the name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The 'Use when: renaming a category or changing its icon within its scope' line gives concrete triggering scenarios. It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. vs. labels_update_label), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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