TRAECNclaw MCP

Set TraeCN Setting Text

traecn_set_setting_text

Enter a text value into a TraeCN setting field by section and label, then verify the field content afterward.

Instructions

Enter one text value into the setting field identified by section and label, and confirm what the field contains afterwards.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Text content to enter into the field.
`label`	Yes	Setting label exactly as returned by traecn_list_settings.
`section`	Yes	Section name exactly as returned by traecn_list_setting_sections.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Stable machine-readable result or error code.
`error`	No	Error identifier or diagnostic when the operation failed.
`label`	No	Setting label that was written.
`value`	No	Value applied to the setting.
`result`	No	Driver-reported write outcome, including already-in-desired-state.
`status`	No	Stable operation or task status.
`taskId`	No	Stable gateway task identifier.
`changed`	No	Whether visible TraeCN state changed.
`message`	No	Human-readable outcome summary.
`success`	No	Whether the operation succeeded.
`verified`	No	True only when the observed UI value equals the requested value.
`retryable`	No	Whether retrying the same call can succeed later.
`nextAction`	No	Suggested next step after a failure.
`controlType`	No	UI control whose value was read back.
`conversationId`	No	Stable TraeCN conversation identifier.
`requestedValue`	No	Value requested by the caller.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.7.1-glama.1Nov 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / controlType

Added value: +{
+  "description": "UI control whose value was read back.",
+  "enum": [
+    "toggle",
+    "option",
+    "text"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / requestedValue

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Value requested by the caller."
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / verified

Added value: +{
+  "description": "True only when the observed UI value equals the requested value.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: it writes exactly one value and then reads the field back to confirm its contents, which tells the agent the call is self-verifying. It stops short of describing overwrite semantics or what happens if the section/label does not resolve.

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?

A single sentence with the action and its target front-loaded, followed by the post-write verification behavior. No filler, no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and full parameter documentation is in the schema plus annotations cover the mutation profile. The remaining gap is failure behavior — missing section/label, or whether existing text is replaced — which is relevant for a non-idempotent write but not stated.

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 the schema already ties 'label' and 'section' to the corresponding list tools. The description adds only the constraint that exactly one text value is written; it gives no format, length, or escaping guidance for 'text' beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and target: 'Enter one text value into the setting field identified by section and label.' The phrase 'one text value' implicitly separates it from the toggle and option-setting siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is indirect: the field is addressed by section/label, which implies the list_settings / list_setting_sections discovery flow, but that dependency lives in the schema, not the description. Nothing tells the agent to prefer set_setting_toggle or select_setting_option in other cases.

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