Update an IPS profile's configuration by providing its UUID and a JSON body with modified settings to apply changes.
Update an IPS profile object by UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| uuid | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'update' without clarifying mutation behavior (full replace vs partial update), authorization needs, side effects, or idempotency. This is insufficient 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, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core action and key identifier.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple update operation, the description lacks details about return values, error conditions, required permissions, and how the body parameter should be structured. The agent needs more context for reliable invocation.
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 coverage is 50%: only 'body' has a description, while 'uuid' lacks one. The description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the missing uuid description. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is moderate but not compensated.
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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'IPS profile object', and specifies the key identifier 'by UUID'. It distinguishes from sibling update tools for other profiles (e.g., anti_spam, redirect) by naming 'IPS profile'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus create, delete, or list alternatives. No prerequisites or context about the IPS profile lifecycle are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.