Update an existing external squad in Remnawave by UUID, including its name, subscription templates, HWID settings, host overrides, and custom remarks.
Update external squad
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| uuid | Yes | UUID of the external squad | |
| templates | No | ||
| hwidSettings | No | ||
| customRemarks | No | ||
| hostOverrides | No | ||
| subpageConfigUuid | No | ||
| responseHeadersAdd | No | ||
| subscriptionSettings | No | ||
| responseHeadersRemove | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent it is a non-destructive mutation but nothing more. The description adds no behavior: it does not say whether this is a partial (PATCH) or full-replace update, whether omitted fields are cleared, or what permissions are required for a 10-parameter mutation.
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?
The single sentence is technically concise with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than economical — three words that carry no information beyond the tool name.
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?
A 10-parameter mutation with nested objects, 10% schema coverage, and no output schema requires a description to carry the load, and this one is empty. An agent has no basis to invoke the tool correctly beyond passing a UUID.
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 10% (only uuid is documented), yet the description explains none of the nine other parameters: name, templates, hwidSettings, customRemarks, hostOverrides, subpageConfigUuid, responseHeadersAdd/Remove, and subscriptionSettings. With nested objects and no compensating prose, an agent cannot know what these fields mean or how to populate them.
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?
"Update external squad" is essentially a restatement of the tool name external_squads_update. It names a verb and resource but provides no scope, no hint of what parts of the squad are updatable, and no differentiation from sibling squads_update or external_squads_set_tags.
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 external_squads_set_tags, external_squads_reorder, or the internal squads_update. No prerequisites or context are given, leaving the agent to guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.