Update a specific compute instance's display name or other details by providing its instanceId. Modify instance properties directly through the Contabo API.
Update specific instance [PATCH /v1/compute/instances/{instanceId}] Update specific instance by instanceId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| instanceId | Yes | The identifier of the instance | |
| 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 disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the PATCH endpoint, but it does not explain partial-update semantics, what gets changed, auth requirements, response behavior, or any other trait beyond the annotations.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ('Update specific instance by instanceId') is redundant with the first and the title. The endpoint is useful, but the overall structure wastes space on repetition rather than adding information.
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 PATCH mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema, and safety annotations, the definition is minimally adequate. It is still thin because it does not clarify partial-update behavior or the scope of the update beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.
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 description coverage is 100%, with instanceId and body/displayName already documented. The description only repeats that the operation is by instanceId and adds no further meaning about the body or displayName parameter.
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?
The description states the verb and resource ('Update specific instance') and includes the PATCH endpoint, so the broad action is identifiable. However, it largely restates the title/name and gives no detail about what aspect of the instance can be updated, so it remains vague beyond the obvious.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_image, update_snapshot, or other instance actions. The only implied usage is that it patches an existing instance by ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.