Update multiple nodes in a Remnawave VPN panel by specifying their UUIDs and the fields to change. Apply bulk changes to node properties like tags, country code, or consumption multipliers.
Update many nodes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuids | Yes | ||
| fields | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, how nested fields like tags or integrationUuids are treated, or any permission or rate-limit considerations.
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 description is a single three-word phrase. While concise and front-loaded, it is under-specified rather than efficient, failing to earn its place by conveying any information an agent could not already infer from 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?
This is a bulk mutation tool with a complex nested fields schema, no output schema, and annotations only covering readOnly/destructive hints. The description is entirely inadequate for that complexity, omitting what fields are updatable, expected return behavior, error handling, and any bulk-specific constraints.
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 0%: neither required parameter (uuids, fields) is documented, and the nested fields object contains nine sub-properties with no explanation. The description mentions 'many nodes' but never names the parameters or explains their semantics, leaving the agent with no parameter guidance.
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?
The description 'Update many nodes' restates the tool name (nodes_bulk_update) without adding specificity such as which fields can be updated or how it differs from nodes_update or nodes_bulk_profile_modification. It is a tautological paraphrase of the tool identifier rather than a clarifying statement of purpose.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this bulk update versus the single-node nodes_update or the more specific nodes_bulk_profile_modification. The description provides no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving usage entirely to inference from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.