Set or update an environment variable for a SAP BTP Cloud Foundry application by specifying its name, variable name, and value.
Set an environment variable for an application
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appName | Yes | Name of the application | |
| varName | Yes | Environment variable name | |
| varValue | Yes | Environment variable value |
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 the full behavioral burden. It says 'Set' but does not disclose whether an existing value is overwritten, whether a restart is required, whether the change persists, or what permissions are needed. This 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the action, though it remains minimal given the absence of supporting context.
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 a low-complexity tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it omits behavioral context such as side effects and prerequisites, leaving notable gaps for a mutation operation without annotations.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter names and schema descriptions provide, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (Set) and resource (environment variable) with the target scope (for an application). It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like cf_get_env and cf_unset_env implicitly, but does not explicitly name or contrast them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for use. The description only restates the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.