Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wallos-mcp

wallos-mcp

by LovelessCodes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update exchange rate provider settings

update_fixer_settings
DestructiveIdempotent

Configures the exchange rate provider and API key for Fixer.io or APILayer, or selects Frankfurter, which requires no key.

Instructions

Sets the exchange rate provider, and the API key for Fixer.io or APILayer. Frankfurter needs no key.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "update_fixer_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerNoWhich provider fetches exchange rates.
fixer_api_keyNoThe provider API key. Leave empty to clear it. Ignored for frankfurter, which needs no key.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, so safety framing is largely covered. The description never explains what the destructive aspect means in practice (overwriting a previously configured provider, or clearing a stored key), though it does flag that Frankfurter requires no key.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler or repetition. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and only two well-documented parameters, so the bar is low, but a destructive configuration change with open-world effects on rate fetching warrants a note on effect scope and on what happens if a key is missing for fixer/apilayer.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters, including the enum and the 'leave empty to clear it' behavior, are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the provider/key coupling without adding new semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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: setting the exchange rate provider and its API key. It clearly differs from get_fixer_settings, but it never mentions that sibling or the general update_settings, leaving the split to the name alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the name and the provider enum; the description never says when to call this versus get_fixer_settings for inspection or update_settings for other configuration. No prerequisites (e.g. obtaining a key before selecting fixer/apilayer) are given.

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