mcp-remnawave

squads_update

Update an internal squad by its UUID to change its name, ensuring VPN panel group configurations remain accurate.

Instructions

Update an internal squad

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": "squads_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	New squad name
`uuid`	Yes	Squad UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose in conveying the tool's function.

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 incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, nor does it explain the update scope or result format. Given the complexity of updating resources, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 fully documents both parameters (uuid and name). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'squad' represents or constraints on name changes. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an internal squad'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'squads_create' or 'squads_delete' beyond the basic verb, nor does it specify what aspects of a squad can be updated beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a squad UUID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'squads_add_users' or 'squads_remove_users' for user management, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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

Deploy Server