ESA MCP Server

update_ipv6

Modify IPv6 configuration for websites to enable or disable IPv6 support in specific regions, controlling network protocol settings.

Instructions

Modifies the IPv6 configuration of a website.

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>",
      "enable": "<enable>"
    },
    "name": "update_ipv6"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siteId`	Yes	The website ID, which can be obtained by calling the ListSites operation.
`enable`	Yes	Specifies whether to enable IPv6.
`region`	No	Enable IPV6 in the region.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Modifies,' implying a mutation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral disclosure, the description is insufficient. It should cover more about effects, errors, or prerequisites to be complete for safe 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%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (siteId, enable, region). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Modifies') and resource ('IPv6 configuration of a website'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_ipv6' or 'update_record', which could handle related configurations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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, such as 'get_ipv6' for reading configuration or 'update_record' for other DNS updates. It lacks explicit context, 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.