Evaluate pending plugin installation configuration changes before saving to validate drafts and revisions without altering active settings.
Evaluate pending configuration without saving TRMNL POST /api/plugin_installations/{plugin_installation_id}/configuration/evaluation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| profile | No | Configured profile name; defaults to default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description's contribution — 'without saving' — reinforces the dry-run semantics but is largely a restatement of readOnlyHint, and it says nothing about what the evaluation produces or whether draft ops are partially applied.
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?
Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded before the endpoint reference; nothing is padded. The raw HTTP endpoint line is low-value filler for an agent but is a common convention and costs little.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of saying what an evaluation returns (validation errors, a diff, a preview?) and does not. Combined with the unnamed sibling evaluate_plugin_configuration and the unexplained draft-op semantics, an agent can form the call but not predict its result.
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 only 33%, and the description adds no meaning to the complex nested 'body': it never explains that 'revision' is likely a concurrency token, what set/unset/clear_secret do, or why the 200-item cap exists. The one thing it does clarify is the plugin_installation_id, visible in the endpoint path template, which is minimal compensation for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('Evaluate pending configuration') plus the key qualifier 'without saving', which tells an agent this is a dry-run validation rather than a write. It does not name the close sibling trmnl_evaluate_plugin_configuration or contrast with trmnl_update_installation_configuration, so differentiation is left to inference.
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?
'Without saving' implies the intended use as a pre-flight check before calling trmnl_update_installation_configuration, but the description never states when to use this versus that tool, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether a valid revision is needed first). Usage is implied rather than declared.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.