mmar-mcp-server

mmar_update_port_instance

Update a port instance by submitting its UUID and the complete JSON data for the desired state. Applies the new configuration to the existing instance.

Instructions

Update an existing port instance. Send the complete desired state.

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>",
      "port_instance_data": "<port_instance_data>"
    },
    "name": "mmar_update_port_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uuid`	Yes	The UUID of the PortInstance to update
`port_instance_data`	Yes	JSON string of the updated PortInstance data

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that the update requires the complete desired state, implying a replace-like semantics. But it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return format, which are important 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and immediately followed by the critical usage hint. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple update tool with well-specified parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It conveys the essential requirement of sending the full state, which is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention return behavior, but this is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds semantic value by clarifying that 'port_instance_data' should be the complete desired state, which goes beyond the schema's 'updated PortInstance data' wording.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb ('Update') and resource ('existing port instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mmar_update_port (which updates a port definition) and mmar_create_port_instance (which creates new instances).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear usage guideline: 'Send the complete desired state' informs the agent that this update requires full replacement rather than partial modification. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

Deploy Server