Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-remnawave

mcp-remnawave

by Nurullaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

node_plugins_update

Update a node plugin's settings by providing its UUID and a new name to apply changes within your Remnawave VPN panel.

Instructions

Update a node plugin

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": "node_plugins_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew name
uuidYesPlugin UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Update', which is already in the tool name, and gives no indication of mutation scope, reversibility, error behavior, required permissions, or consequences.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It adds no information beyond the tool name, so its only structural merit is brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. The uuid requirement and optional name are inferable from the schema, but nothing states what happens on update, what the response looks like, or what successful invocation implies.

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%: 'name' and 'uuid' already have descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema 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.

Purpose2/5

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

The description is essentially a restatement of the tool name: 'Update a node plugin' adds no new information beyond 'node_plugins_update'. It names the verb and resource but does not explain what fields or effects are involved, so it fails to distinguish the tool from sibling node_plugins_* operations.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus node_plugins_create, node_plugins_delete, node_plugins_reorder, or other siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

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