netbox-mcp-server

Update Power_port

netbox_update_power_port

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a power port in NetBox by supplying its numeric ID and only the fields to change. Omitting fields leaves them unchanged.

Update an existing power_port in NetBox (PATCH semantics — only provided fields are changed).

Supply the numeric 'id' and only the fields you want to change. Omitting a field leaves it unchanged.

Returns: Markdown summary of the updated object (default) or JSON with the full NetBox response.

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeric id of the power_port to update.
`name`	No
`tags`	No	Optional array of tag slugs to apply to the object.
`type`	No
`label`	No
`description`	No
`maximum_draw`	No
`custom_fields`	No	Optional object of custom-field slugs -> values. Only include fields defined on your NetBox instance.
`allocated_draw`	No
`mark_connected`	No
`response_format`	No	Output format: 'markdown' (default, human-readable) or 'json' (full structured payload). Use 'json' when chaining follow-up tool calls.	markdown

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent; description adds PATCH semantics and return format options. No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded, no extraneous content.

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?

Covers update operation, return formats (markdown/json). Lacks mention of potential side effects beyond update, but sufficient for typical use.

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?

Only 36% schema coverage; description explains partial update but lacks individual parameter explanations. Adequate but not compensating fully.

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?

Clearly states 'Update an existing power_port in NetBox' with PATCH semantics, distinguishing from create/delete siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs to supply numeric 'id' and only fields to change. Could mention alternatives like create for new ports.

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

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ZenixSolutions/netbox-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server