Skip to main content
Glama

update_plugin_config

Modify plugin configurations in APISIX-MCP by updating descriptions, labels, and plugin settings to customize API gateway behavior.

Instructions

Update a plugin config

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoplugin config ID
pluginsNo

Implementation Reference

  • Registers and implements the handler for the update_plugin_config tool. The inline async function executes the tool logic by making a PATCH request to the admin API at `/plugin_configs/${args.id}` with the provided arguments.
    server.tool("update_plugin_config", "Update a plugin config", UpdatePluginConfigSchema.shape, async (args) => {
      return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/plugin_configs/${args.id}`, "PATCH", args);
    });
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters for the update_plugin_config tool, including the config ID and plugins configuration (patchable).
    export const UpdatePluginConfigSchema = createNullablePatchSchema(z.object({
      id: z.string().describe("plugin config ID"),
      plugins: PluginConfigSchema,
    }));
  • Location where the update_plugin_config tool is registered with the MCP server using server.tool(), specifying name, description, input shape, and handler.
    server.tool("update_plugin_config", "Update a plugin config", UpdatePluginConfigSchema.shape, async (args) => {
      return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/plugin_configs/${args.id}`, "PATCH", args);
    });
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (mutation operation with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for missing structured data, leaving gaps in understanding behavioral traits, parameter usage, and expected outcomes. A mutation tool requires more contextual detail.

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 50%, with parameters 'id' and 'plugins' partially documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the tool name implying 'plugin config' updates. It doesn't clarify the relationship between 'id' and 'plugins' or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects marginal value over the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Update a plugin config' states the action ('update') and resource ('plugin config'), which provides basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'plugin config' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_plugin_config' or 'update_*' tools for other resources. It meets the minimum viable threshold but lacks specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing plugin config), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_plugin_config' or 'create_or_update_plugin_metadata'. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/api7/apisix-mcp'

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