Extend expiration dates for all Remnawave VPN users at once by a set number of days. Bulk-extend every user's access in a single API call instead of editing each subscription individually.
Extend expiration date for EVERY user by days
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| extendDays | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the important scoping trait that this affects EVERY user, but does not describe side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or behavior for users without subscriptions.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The scope and action are immediately clear.
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?
For a one-parameter bulk operation with annotations covering the destructive nature and no output schema, the description states scope, action, and parameter meaning adequately. It could be stronger with explicit warning that this affects every user irreversibly, but the annotations already signal destructive behavior.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter explanation. 'by days' clarifies that the integer extendDays value is a count of days to add, but adds no constraints, default, or format beyond the schema's type and minimum.
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 states a specific verb ('Extend expiration date'), resource ('EVERY user'), and modifier ('by days'). The all-caps scope explicitly distinguishes it from the selected-subset sibling users_bulk_extend_expiration and the single-user users_extend_expiration.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope statement: use this when the intent is to extend expiration for all users, not a subset. However, no alternative tool is named, no when-not guidance is given, and no preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.