Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vicarius vRx MCP Server

Vicarius vRx MCP Server

by Space-C0wboy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

automations_automations_3

Update an automation by ID using a JSON request body to modify its configuration.

Instructions

automations · PUT /v1/automations/{id} — Updates automation Required: id. Requires a JSON request body.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "automations_automations_3"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYespath param id
bodyNoJSON request body

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions required fields (id, JSON body) but discloses no behavioral traits such as partial vs full update, error handling, permissions, or side effects. The agent lacks critical information for safe use.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise at 12 words, front-loaded with the tool category 'automations'. It includes essential info (HTTP method, path, action) without fluff. Could be slightly better structured but effective for quick scanning.

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 complexity (2 params, no output schema) and a large set of sibling tools, the description lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter specifics needed to fully understand the tool's role. It is inadequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly among many automation tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Required: id' and 'Requires a JSON request body', but the schema defines body as optional (anyOf: {} or null, default null). This creates a minor inconsistency but still adds some context. No additional parameter details beyond schema.

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 'Updates automation' and provides the HTTP method PUT and path pattern, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like automation_delete or automation_insert.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for insert, delete, search, and state updates, but the description offers no context about when an update is appropriate or what the differences are.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools