Updates an existing site in Security Director Cloud by its name using a JSON body that matches the target schema.
Update a site by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body matching the target Security Director Cloud schema. | |
| site_name | 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 present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'update' without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or error handling. The lack of detail 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 sentence with no wasted words. While it is concise, it borders on under-specification, but it is not verbose or cluttered.
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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, one being a nested object), no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the body schema, return values, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.
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?
The description adds 'by name' clarifying the site_name parameter as an identifier, but the body parameter is only vaguely described. With a schema coverage of 50%, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details, leaving the agent uncertain about the required fields.
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 'Update a site by name' clearly states the action (update) and resource (site), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_site, delete_site, get_site, and list_sites. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of the site can be updated.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_site or deploy_site. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.