Skip to main content
Glama
beaglesecurity

Beagle Security MCP Server

Official

beagle_modify_project

Update project details including name and description in Beagle Security's security testing platform to maintain accurate project information.

Instructions

Modify an existing project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectKeyYesProject key
nameYesProject name
descriptionYesProject description

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that performs a PUT request to the Beagle Security API to modify a project.
    private async modifyProject(args: any) {
      const result = await this.makeRequest("/projects", {
        method: "PUT",
        body: JSON.stringify({
          projectKey: args.projectKey,
          name: args.name,
          description: args.description,
        }),
      });
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Project modified successfully:\n${JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The tool definition/schema for 'beagle_modify_project'.
      name: "beagle_modify_project",
      description: "Modify an existing project",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          projectKey: { type: "string", description: "Project key" },
          name: { type: "string", description: "Project name" },
          description: { type: "string", description: "Project description" },
        },
        required: ["projectKey", "name", "description"],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:288-289 (registration)
    The registration of the tool handler within the request handler switch statement.
    case "beagle_modify_project":
      return await this.modifyProject(args);
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 only states it modifies a project without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 3 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly in context with siblings.

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 documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying modification occurs. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that projectKey identifies the target, while name/description are updated fields), so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Modify an existing project' clearly states the action (modify) and resource (project), distinguishing it from creation/deletion siblings. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects can be modified (e.g., name, description) or the scope of changes, making it somewhat vague compared to more detailed alternatives.

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 beagle_create_project or beagle_delete_project. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project key) or contextual constraints, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

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/beaglesecurity/beagle-security-mcp-server'

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