mcp-remnawave

nodes_bulk_profile_modification

Assign a new config profile to multiple selected nodes by supplying node UUIDs and the target profile UUID, updating them in one bulk operation.

Instructions

Bulk modify config profile for selected nodes

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": {
      "nodeUuids": "<nodeUuids>",
      "configProfileUuid": "<configProfileUuid>"
    },
    "name": "nodes_bulk_profile_modification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`nodeUuids`	Yes	Array of node UUIDs
`configProfileUuid`	Yes	New config profile UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 disclosing side effects. It states the operation modifies config profiles but does not mention whether the previous profile is overwritten, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if a node UUID is invalid.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two clearly documented parameters and no output schema. However, for a mutating bulk operation with no annotations, the description lacks behavioral context and usage differentiation, leaving an agent with some uncertainty about side effects and alternatives.

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 both parameters already documented as 'Array of node UUIDs' and 'New config profile UUID'. The description restates these concepts at a higher level ('selected nodes', 'config profile') but adds little 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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Bulk modify config profile for selected nodes'. It distinguishes the operation from generic bulk node updates by specifying config profiles, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like nodes_bulk_update.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nodes_bulk_update or nodes_update. The word 'bulk' implies batch usage, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative routing.

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

Deploy Server