Update an existing subscription template in a Remnawave VPN panel using its UUID, with new name, JSON configuration, or base64-encoded YAML.
Update an existing subscription template
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New template name | |
| uuid | Yes | Template UUID | |
| templateJson | No | Template JSON configuration object | |
| encodedTemplateYaml | No | Base64-encoded YAML template |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does 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' implies mutation but the description doesn't state whether it performs partial updates, replaces the entire template, requires the record to exist, or returns the updated template. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with zero filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making the tool's purpose instantly scannable. No word is wasted, though more behavioral detail could be added without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it's a mutation tool with no annotations anywhere and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral transparency, and clarity about the update semantics (partial vs. full replacement). Even though the schema covers parameters well, an agent isn't equipped to call this correctly with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with useful descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'New template name', 'Base64-encoded YAML template'). Since the schema already explains every parameter, the description doesn't need to add much. It provides no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and a clear resource ('an existing subscription template'), making its intent immediately obvious. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like subscription_templates_list, subscription_templates_create, and subscription_templates_delete without needing to inspect schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No context is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that a template must already exist, whether the update is partial or full, or what happens to fields omitted from the request. An agent has no guidance on preconditions or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.