Update an existing hosting plan by providing its ID and the fields to change. Use this tool to modify plan details through the Panelica API.
Update plan
HTTP: PATCH /v1/plans/:id Category: Plans Required scopes: plans:write Mutating: changes server state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Path parameter: id | |
| body | No | Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / bodyAdded value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Request body (application/json). Schema not statically declared — see API docs.",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Mutating: changes server state' and adds the required scope plans:write. It does not cover partial-update semantics, validation, or return behavior, but the annotations carry the core safety profile, so this level is adequate.
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 appropriately short and front-loaded: 'Update plan' first, then the HTTP endpoint, category, required scope, and mutation effect. Every line carries operational information and there is no filler.
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?
For an update endpoint with an opaque request body and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it gives no hints about valid plan fields, whether PATCH is partial or full replacement, or what response to expect. An agent has enough to know this mutates a plan but not enough to construct a correct update body.
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%: the id parameter is documented as the path parameter and body as a JSON request body. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies; however, the body is an opaque additionalProperties object with no statically declared schema, leaving the agent without concrete field names for the update.
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 opens with 'Update plan' and specifies HTTP PATCH to /v1/plans/:id, making clear this modifies an existing plan rather than creating, reading, or deleting one. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by verb and resource, though it does not describe which plan attributes are affected.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternative routing is provided; the description only states HTTP method, category, required scopes, and mutating behavior. The agent has to infer from the HTTP verb and sibling names when to select this instead of plans_post or plans_delete. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.