mcp-remnawave

config_profiles_update

Update a config profile in a Remnawave VPN panel by supplying the profile UUID and optionally a new name or full Xray config object.

Instructions

Update a config profile

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "config_profiles_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name
`uuid`	Yes	Profile UUID
`config`	No	Full Xray config object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update a config profile.' It does not state whether the update is partial or full replacement, how the optional 'config' field is handled, what side effects may occur, or whether changes are reversible.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is terse and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it essentially restates the tool name. A short phrase carrying no additional operational detail is closer to under-specification than to good conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify update semantics, prerequisites, return behavior, and side effects. None of that context is present. The schema covers parameters but not the behavioral context needed to invoke the tool confidently and safely.

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%, with each parameter already documented ('New name', 'Profile UUID', 'Full Xray config object'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a config profile.' This distinguishes it from sibling operations such as config_profiles_create, config_profiles_delete, config_profiles_list, and config_profiles_get. However, it is still generic and does not mention the updatable aspects (name, config object) beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus config_profiles_create, config_profiles_delete, or config_profiles_reorder, and no mention of prerequisites such as the profile needing to exist. Usage is only implied by the word 'Update'.

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

Deploy Server