Railway MCP Server

volume_update

Modify volume properties like name in Railway.app infrastructure to manage storage resources effectively.

Instructions

Update a volume's properties

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": {
      "volumeId": "<volumeId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "volume_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`volumeId`	Yes	ID of the volume to update
`name`	Yes	New name for the volume

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update a volume's properties,' implying mutation, but lacks details on whether it is destructive, requires permissions, or affects other volume attributes.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it is overly brief and under-specified for a tool with two parameters. It could benefit from including more context without becoming 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are important for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with clear descriptions (volumeId and name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (update) and resource (volume), distinguishing it from sibling tools like volume_create, volume_delete, and volume_list. It is specific enough for a simple update tool.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where a different tool (e.g., volume_create) would be appropriate.

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