Merge changes into an existing remote host profile or fully replace it, and remove optional fields while keeping required settings valid.
Update a profile by merging changes, or fully replace it with replace=true.
Use remove_fields to delete optional settings. Required fields must remain valid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| changes | Yes | ||
| replace | No | ||
| remove_fields | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says replace=true fully replaces the profile and remove_fields deletes optional settings, which is destructive behavior. This contradicts the destructiveHint=false annotation, so the description conflicts with structured safety metadata despite adding useful merge/replace details.
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 two concise sentences with the primary update modes front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.
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?
It covers the key update modes and required-field validity constraint, which is helpful for a nested-object update tool. It remains incomplete because the changes payload is undocumented and the destructive replacement behavior is not reconciled with the annotations.
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?
The description adds meaning for replace and remove_fields, explaining full replacement and field deletion. With 0% schema description coverage, however, it still does not explain the required name identifier or the structure and accepted keys of the changes object.
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 names a specific verb and resource: update a profile with either merge or full replace semantics. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling operations like remote_profile_rename or remote_profile_create.
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?
It explains when to use replace=true and remove_fields, which is useful mode-selection guidance. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings such as remote_profile_rename, remote_profile_create, or remote_profile_delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.