ESA MCP Server

route_update

Modify an existing Edge Routine route configuration to update settings like enable status, rules, routines, and bypass options for site security management.

Instructions

Modify the configuration of an existing Edge Routine route.

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": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "configId": "<configId>",
      "routeName": "<routeName>",
      "routeEnable": "<routeEnable>",
      "rule": "<rule>",
      "routineName": "<routineName>",
      "bypass": "<bypass>"
    },
    "name": "route_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siteId`	Yes	The ID of the site
`configId`	Yes	The ID of the config
`routeName`	Yes	The name of the route, use to identify the route.
`routeEnable`	Yes	The enable of the route
`rule`	Yes	The rule of the route
`routineName`	Yes	The name of the routine
`bypass`	Yes	The bypass of the route
`sequence`	No	The sequence of the route, if not passed, default is the current number of routes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Modify' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 7 required, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on what the modification entails or returns, making it incomplete for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Modify') and resource ('configuration of an existing Edge Routine route'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_create' or 'route_get', which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'route_create' for new routes or 'route_delete' for removal. It lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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