Skip to main content
Glama

update_upstream

Modify specific upstream attributes in APISIX-MCP, such as load balancing, timeout, health checks, and TLS settings, to optimize API gateway performance and configuration.

Instructions

Update specific attributes of an existing upstream

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoupstream id
upstreamNoupstream service configuration object

Implementation Reference

  • The handler implementation for the 'update_upstream' tool. It is registered inline with server.tool(). It checks if an ID is provided and if so, makes a PATCH request to the /upstreams/{id} endpoint using the helper makeAdminAPIRequest.
    server.tool("update_upstream", "Update specific attributes of an existing upstream", UpdateUpstreamSchema.shape, async (args) => {
      if (!args.id) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({ error: "Upstream ID is required for updates" }, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    
      return await makeAdminAPIRequest(`/upstreams/${args.id}`, "PATCH", args.upstream);
    });
  • Zod schema definition for validating the input parameters of the update_upstream tool, including ID and partial upstream configuration.
    export const UpdateUpstreamSchema = createNullablePatchSchema(z.object({ id: z.string().describe("upstream id"), upstream: UpstreamSchema.partial() }));
  • Supporting utility function that performs the actual HTTP request to the APISIX Admin API and formats the response as MCP CallToolResult. Used by the update_upstream handler.
    export async function makeAdminAPIRequest(
      path: string,
      method: string = "GET",
      data?: object
    ): Promise<CallToolResult> {
      const baseUrl = `${APISIX_SERVER_HOST}:${APISIX_ADMIN_API_PORT}${APISIX_ADMIN_API_PREFIX}`;
      const url = `${baseUrl}${path}`;
    
      try {
        const response = await axios({
          method,
          url,
          data,
          headers: {
            "X-API-KEY": APISIX_ADMIN_KEY,
            "Content-Type": "application/json",
          },
        });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(response.data, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          console.error(`Request failed: ${method} ${url}`);
          console.error(
            `Status: ${error.response?.status}, Error: ${error.message}`
          );
    
          if (error.response?.data) {
            try {
              const stringifiedData = JSON.stringify(error.response.data);
              console.error(`Response data: ${stringifiedData}`);
            } catch {
              console.error(`Response data: [Cannot parse as JSON]`);
            }
          }
    
          return {
            isError: true,
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(
                  `Status: ${error.response?.status}\nMessage: ${error.message}
    Data:\n${JSON.stringify(error.response?.data || {}, null, 2)}`,
                  null,
                  2
                ),
              },
            ],
          };
        } else {
          return {
            isError: true,
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: JSON.stringify(error, null, 2),
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, if it validates inputs, how it handles partial updates, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 complex mutation tool with 2 parameters (one being a deeply nested configuration object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'specific attributes' means in practice, how updates are applied, or what the tool returns. The agent lacks critical context for safe and effective 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'id' identifies the upstream and 'upstream' contains attributes to update. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Update') and target ('specific attributes of an existing upstream'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from 'create_upstream' by specifying 'existing', but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_service' or 'update_route' beyond the resource type.

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 upstream ID), compare with sibling tools like 'create_upstream' or 'delete_resource', or specify use cases for partial versus full updates.

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