Kura MCP Server

kura_update_configuration

Update a component configuration on a Kura IoT gateway by specifying the instance, PID, and new properties. Apply targeted changes to manage device settings effectively.

Instructions

Update a component configuration

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": {
      "instance": "<instance>",
      "pid": "<pid>",
      "properties": "<properties>"
    },
    "name": "kura_update_configuration"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pid`	Yes	Component PID
`instance`	Yes	Kura instance name
`properties`	Yes	Component properties to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only implies mutation ('Update') but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, failure modes, or whether a service restart is triggered. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies state.

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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is immediately clear what the tool does, and no words are wasted.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, plus the nested properties object and three required parameters, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how configuration changes are applied, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (pid, instance, properties), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, keeping it at the baseline.

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 the resource ('a component configuration'), which distinguishes it from the 'get' siblings. It is a specific verb+resource statement, though it could be more explicit about what 'configuration' entails.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It is a single sentence with no mention of the getter tools or other update-related operations.

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

Deploy Server