Update every Remnawave user in one bulk operation, applying status, expiration, traffic limits, tags, and other fields across all accounts at once.
Update EVERY user at once
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| No | |||
| status | No | ||
| expireAt | No | Expiration date: 2025-01-17T15:38:45.065Z | |
| telegramId | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| hwidDeviceLimit | No | ||
| trafficLimitBytes | No | Traffic limit in bytes. 0 - unlimited | |
| trafficLimitStrategy | No | Available reset periods |
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, so the safety profile is covered externally. The phrase 'EVERY user at once' reinforces breadth, but the description adds nothing annotation-independent: no word on irreversibility, whether omitted fields are cleared on all users, or blast-radius confirmation.
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 padding, which is structurally clean, but it is too thin for a nine-parameter global mutation — the brevity here reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 destructive, whole-tenant bulk mutation with nine parameters, no output schema, and no warnings about irreversibility or omitted-field behavior. Given the complexity and the low schema coverage, an agent cannot safely invoke this from the definition provided.
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?
Nine parameters with only 33% schema description coverage, and the description provides zero parameter information — it never names tag, status, expireAt, trafficLimitBytes, or any other field. For a low-coverage schema the description must compensate, and it does not.
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?
States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('user') with an explicit scope qualifier ('EVERY ... at once'), which distinguishes it from the sibling users_bulk_update that presumably acts on a subset. It does not say which fields are affected, but the all-users scope is unambiguous.
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 on when to choose this over users_bulk_update, users_update, or users_bulk_delete_by_status, and no prerequisites or caution about applying a change globally. The agent is left to infer the selection criteria 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.