Updates mashup sections by assigning plugin settings to selected positions while leaving omitted positions unchanged.
Change the sections of a mashup Positions left out keep their plugin setting. TRMNL PATCH /api/mashups/{id}. Changes remote state or starts work. Run only within the user-authorized scope.
| 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 the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the update is a merge (omitted positions retain their plugin setting), and it flags remote state change and required authorization scope — exactly what an agent needs to know before patching.
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 key semantics (merge behavior, endpoint) are front-loaded in the first two lines, with no wasted prose. The closing line is slightly generic/boilerplate given annotations already convey that this is a mutating operation.
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?
Adequate for a nested-body PATCH tool: merge semantics, endpoint, and mutation warning are covered and no output schema exists to explain. However, with a nested body containing two properties and only preexisting coverage of one, plus no guidance on the profile or health-notification flag, the description leaves gaps.
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 coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It clarifies that the contents map is keyed by position and that absent positions are preserved, but it says nothing about the `path.id`, the `profile` parameter, or `health_notification_enabled`, nor how to obtain valid plugin setting ids.
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 ("Change the sections of a mashup") and names the underlying endpoint, which pins the scope precisely. It implicitly distinguishes itself from read siblings like trmnl_get_mashup and creation sibling trmnl_create_device_mashup, but never names them.
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 only implied: the tool is for mutating an existing mashup's section layout. There is no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings (e.g., trmnl_get_mashup_options for discovering plugin setting ids, or trmnl_create_device_mashup for a new one), and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.