Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mia

mia

by akadorkin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

geo_update

Run the roscomvpn GeoIP/GeoSite updater across selected hosts and confirm it succeeds, using dry-run planning before a planHash-confirmed apply.

Instructions

Run the roscomvpn geoip/geosite updater now (update-roscomvpn-geo.service from vps-edge-run.sh) and check it succeeded.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "geo_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNofalse (default) = dry run: show what will happen on which hosts and a planHash. true = run it; needs planHash
batchNohosts at a time (rolling). Default depends on the action: 1 for disruptive ones
targetNohosts: all | <host> | <glob nl-*> | <group> | role:<edge|remnanode|panel|docker> | tag:<tag>; comma-separated, !x excludesrole:remnanode
planHashNoplanHash from the dry run of the very same call, good for one apply; refused if targets or their state changed since
continueOnErrorNokeep going after a host fails (default: stop the rollout at the first failure)
skipUnreachableNoskip hosts that do not answer over ssh instead of refusing the whole plan (they show as skipped)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the call checks for success, which hints at a return signal, but it omits that the default is a dry run requiring a planHash to apply, that it rolls out across multiple hosts (default role:remnanode), and that it is a disruptive mutation.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. The parenthetical service and script names add identification value without bloating it.

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?

For a six-parameter fleet mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never mentions the dry-run/apply gate, the fleet-wide default target, the batch/rolling behavior, or how success is reported, leaving the agent to reconstruct all of that from the schema.

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 all six parameters including target, apply, and planHash are already thoroughly documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (the roscomvpn geoip/geosite updater), naming the underlying service and script, which distinguishes it from sibling update tools like blacklist_update or cert_renew. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 word 'now' implies an immediate synchronous run rather than a scheduled one, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the dry-run-then-apply workflow the schema implies, and no routing to alternatives such as fleet_schedule or scenario_start.

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