Update an existing Tailscale service by changing its ACL tags, ports, and host auto-approval to match current network requirements.
Update a Tailscale Service's configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ACL tags for the service | |
| ports | No | Ports the service listens on | |
| serviceName | Yes | The service name to update | |
| autoApproveHosts | No | Whether to auto-approve devices that want to host this service |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.13.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as potential side effects, authentication needs, or partial update behavior.
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 sentence with no extraneous words, achieving conciseness. However, it is very minimal and could benefit from additional front-loaded context without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain return values, update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replace), or which fields are updatable. Combined with annotations, it meets a basic threshold but lacks depth.
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%, meaning all four parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is 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 'Update a Tailscale Service's configuration' clearly specifies a verb ('Update') and resource ('Tailscale Service's configuration'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like tailscale_get_service (read) and tailscale_delete_service (delete).
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tailscale_update_service_device_approval) or prerequisites. The description merely states the action without contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.