mcp-remnawave

users_update

Update an existing Remnawave user by numeric ID, changing status, expiration, traffic limits, and other account fields.

Instructions

Update an existing Remnawave user (identified by numeric ID)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "users_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	User numeric ID to update
`tag`	No	User tag
`email`	No	User email
`status`	No	User status
`expireAt`	No	New expiration date (ISO 8601)
`username`	No	New username
`telegramId`	No	Telegram user ID
`description`	No	User description
`hwidDeviceLimit`	No	Max HWID devices
`externalSquadUuid`	No	External squad UUID
`trafficLimitBytes`	No	New traffic limit in bytes
`activeInternalSquads`	No	Internal squad UUIDs
`trafficLimitStrategy`	No	Traffic reset period

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the operation and identifier. It does not disclose whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or reset, what happens for a missing ID, or any permission implications.

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?

One compact sentence with the key scoping information front-loaded and no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is too thin: it omits update semantics (merge vs replace), return value, and error behavior. The schema's field descriptions do not compensate for the missing operational contract.

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 already documents all 13 parameters in detail. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the numeric ID requirement, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (update), resource (existing Remnawave user), and identifier (numeric ID), clearly separating it from create/delete/enable/bulk variants among siblings.

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 on when to choose this tool over users_bulk_update, users_enable, users_disable, or other related siblings. The only implied cue is 'existing' versus create/delete, leaving usage context to inference.

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

Deploy Server