Updates an existing Contabo firewall by ID, allowing you to change its name, description, or active/inactive status to control traffic filtering.
Update a firewall by id [PATCH /v1/firewalls/{firewallId}] Update a firewall by id in your account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| firewallId | Yes | The identifier of the firewall | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint, such as what PATCH semantics mean, which fields are updated, or permission requirements.
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?
The description is short but redundant: 'Update a firewall by id' is repeated in two sentences. The endpoint bracket is useful, but the repetition weakens efficiency.
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?
For a mutation tool with annotations and a fully described schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, it lacks key contextual details such as partial-update semantics, differentiation from put_firewall, and any indication of required permissions or side effects.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema, including nested body fields. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage or format, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (firewall by id), and includes the HTTP endpoint. However, it does not distinguish this partial-update tool from the sibling put_firewall, leaving ambiguity about when each should be used.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus put_firewall or other firewall operations. It only restates the action without any context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.