NexTool MCP for GLPI

Update rule action

glpi_update_rule_action

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a GLPI rule action by ID to change its action type, field, or value and adjust rule behavior.

Instructions

Update a rule action by ID. Fields: action_type, field, value.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "actionId": "<actionId>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_update_rule_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Fields to update (action_type, field, value)
`actionId`	Yes	Item ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and mutation profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the operation name — no detail on what changes are destructive, permissions required, or reversibility — but the annotation bar lowers the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though the second sentence partly duplicates the nested schema's description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema and rich annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be restated. However, the `input` object is free-form (additionalProperties: {}), and the description offers no guidance on valid action_type/field/value combinations, leaving a meaningful gap for this mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the input object documents the same fields (action_type, field, value) that the description lists. The description adds no syntax, allowed values, or format detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('rule action') plus the ID-based addressing, so its operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like glpi_create_rule_action or glpi_list_rule_actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for modifying an existing rule action versus creating one.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server