Skip to main content
Glama

OpenPanel: Update client

openpanel_update_client
Destructive

Update an API client's name or mode via Manage API; requires a root-mode client.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Update an API client via Manage API. Requires 'root' mode client.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "openpanel_update_client"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo
nameNo
siteYes
client_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely new fact, the root-mode authorization requirement, but says nothing about which fields change, whether unspecified fields are left intact, or whether an update can be reverted.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint, with no filler sentences. The bracketed "[UNIFIED]" tag is unexplained noise, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, so the description should do far more than it does. It leaves open what a partial update means for the three optional nullable fields, and what the caller gets back after success.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and delivers almost nothing: name and site are never mentioned. Worse, "Requires 'root' mode client" is easily confused with the undocumented `mode` parameter, potentially steering an agent to pass mode="root" when the phrase likely refers to a credential class.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Update an API client"), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/get client siblings. However, the "[UNIFIED]" prefix and "via Manage API" add no discriminating information, and it never says what aspects of the client are updatable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The prerequisite "Requires 'root' mode client" gives a real gate for when this tool can be used, which is useful context. But it offers no guidance on choosing between this and openpanel_create_client/openpanel_delete_client, and no when-not conditions.

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