Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-remnawave

mcp-remnawave

by Nurullaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

hosts_update

Update an existing host's settings—SNI, ALPN, port, address, tags, and more—to adjust its connection parameters and client visibility.

Instructions

Update an existing host

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": "hosts_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sniNoNew SNI
alpnNoNew ALPN
hostNoNew host header
pathNoNew URL path
portNoNew port
tagsNoArray of tags (uppercase letters, numbers, underscores and colons only; max 36 chars each, up to 10 tags)
uuidYesHost UUID to update
mapperNoOutbound field operations per client format. Each op is {op:"copy",from,to} | {op:"set",value,to} | {op:"unset",to}
remarkNoNew remark/name
addressNoNew address
isDisabledNoEnable/disable host
fingerprintNoNew TLS fingerprint (free-form)
securityLayerNoNew security layer
internalSquadsNoWhich internal squads may see this host (replaces excludedInternalSquads)
mihomoIpVersionNoIP version used by Mihomo clients
serverDescriptionNoNew server description
pinnedPeerCertSha256NoPin peer certificate by SHA-256 fingerprint
verifyPeerCertByNameNoVerify peer certificate by name
excludeFromSubscriptionTypesNoSubscription types to exclude this host from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing host' only implies a mutation; it does not clarify partial-update semantics (whether unspecified fields are preserved), idempotency, permission requirements, or the result of updating a non-existent host. For a 19-parameter mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

The description is very concise, a single 5-word sentence with no fluff. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool of this complexity — conciseness is good, but the description essentially repeats the tool name 'hosts_update' rather than adding meaningful structured information.

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?

With 19 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this is a high-complexity tool that a one-sentence description is completely inadequate for. The agent cannot determine update semantics, error behavior, or how nested fields like mapper and internalSquads interact with existing values, though the presence of hosts_get sibling could help partially compensate.

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%, so the schema richly documents all 19 parameters including enums, nullability, and nested structures for mapper and internalSquads. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric the baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight; the description's lack of param hints is not penalized further.

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 an existing host') and is well-differentiated from siblings like hosts_create, hosts_delete, and hosts_get by the focus on updating an existing entity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from hosts_bulk_update, leaving the agent to infer that this is the single-host variant.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hosts_bulk_update or hosts_create, and it does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., the host must already exist, UUID must be valid). There is no exclusions or alternative routing, so the agent receives zero usage context beyond the tool name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools