Update subscription settings for a Remnawave VPN panel user by UUID, including HWID limits, custom remarks, response rules, hosts, and headers to control subscription access and client responses.
Update subscription settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | ||
| hwidSettings | No | ||
| customRemarks | No | ||
| responseRules | No | ||
| randomizeHosts | No | ||
| isShowCustomRemarks | No | ||
| customResponseHeaders | No | ||
| serveJsonAtBaseSubscription | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that. For a mutation of global subscription behavior — including response rules that can block requests or drop sockets — the absence of any note about scope, permissions, or persistence is a significant gap.
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?
It is short, but this is under-specification rather than economy — the single phrase is front-loaded yet carries no information an agent can act on. There is no wasted sentence because there is essentially only one.
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?
Given 8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and a global mutation surface, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the tool changes, what the required uuid identifies, or what the nested objects control.
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% across 8 parameters, including deeply nested structures (hwidSettings, customRemarks, responseRules with conditions and responseModifications). The description names none of them, so it supplies zero compensation for the undocumented schema.
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 subscription settings" is essentially a restatement of the tool name with no added specificity. It does not indicate what subset of settings is affected or how this differs from the sibling subscription_settings_get, so an agent learns nothing beyond the verb+resource already encoded in the name.
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, no prerequisites (e.g. that it operates on global subscription behavior rather than a single user), and no reference to alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.