Updates fields for a TRMNL plugin setting by ID via the TRMNL API, letting you change remote plugin configuration values within authorized scope.
Update plugin settings fields TRMNL PATCH /api/plugin_settings/{plugin_setting_id}/settings. 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?
The annotations already disclose readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds a remote-state warning and an authorization-scope caveat, which is useful, but it does not explain whether fields are merged or replaced, what side effects occur, or what the mutation returns.
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 description is short and front-loads the action and endpoint. The safety sentence is somewhat boilerplate, but the overall structure is efficient and easy to scan.
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?
This is a mutation tool with nested request bodies, low schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description does not explain the body.fields shape, the difference from sibling update tools, or the consequences of the partial update, leaving important context missing.
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 does not compensate. It implies plugin_setting_id via the endpoint path, but the nested body.fields object is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the optional profile parameter is not clarified.
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 and resource: update plugin settings fields, and includes the backing PATCH endpoint. It is clear what operation is being performed, but it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as trmnl_update_plugin_setting, trmnl_update_plugin_setting_data, or trmnl_update_plugin_configuration.
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?
The description gives only a generic warning that this changes remote state and should be run within authorized scope. It does not explain when to use this tool instead of nearby update/configuration/data tools, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.