threatlocker-mcp

computer_update_for_edit

Modify computer details such as name, proxy configuration, and group membership.

Instructions

Update Computer

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "computer_update_for_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Request body.
`organization_id`	No	Override the default organization (ManagedOrganizationId header).
`override_organization_id`	No	Optional OverrideManagedOrganizationId header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states 'Update Computer' without explaining side effects, prerequisites, or whether the operation is reversible. The vague verb provides minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely terse at just two words. While concise, it fails to convey sufficient information for agent decision-making, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the nested input schema, lack of output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, required fields beyond 'body', or constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters having descriptions in the input schema (e.g., 'Request body.'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update Computer' states a verb and resource, but is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like computer_update_maintenance_mode or computer_update_baseline_rescan. It lacks specificity on the type of update (e.g., general settings vs. maintenance).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 alternatives. Sibling tools have distinct purposes (e.g., enabling protection, moving to organization), but the description does not help the agent decide which to invoke.

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

Deploy Server