Update a single key in an OpenShift ConfigMap using strategic merge patch, enabling targeted configuration changes without replacing the entire resource.
Set or update a single key in a ConfigMap using strategic merge patch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| cluster | No | ||
| namespace | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 says 'set or update' and 'strategic merge patch' but does not mention potential side effects, whether a missing ConfigMap is created, whether other keys are preserved, permission requirements, or idempotency. This is insufficient 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential action, resource scope, and method efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks crucial context needed to safely call the tool: usage conditions, behavior around existing versus missing keys, side effects, and parameter semantics. Given no annotations and a low-information schema, this is incomplete for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for parameters beyond the word 'key'. It does not explain what name, namespace, value, or cluster represent, nor the effect of the default cluster value. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set or update') and resource ('a single key in a ConfigMap'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_configmap, create_configmap, and delete_configmap. Mentioning 'strategic merge patch' adds technical precision about the update mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_configmap or delete_configmap. The description implies modification of an existing ConfigMap key but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.