update_storeUpdate an existing skill store's configuration by specifying only the fields to change; omitted fields remain intact.
Update specified fields. Omitted fields retain their existing values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| url | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| path | No | ||
| bucket | No | ||
| prefix | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| endpoint | No | ||
| access_key | No | ||
| credential | No | ||
| secret_key | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. The description only states the update semantics ('Omitted fields retain their existing values') but does not disclose side effects like whether credentials are partially updated, whether changes are reversible, or whether updates require authentication. The ambiguity of 'specified fields' is vague and leaves much unsaid.
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 brief (one sentence) and front-loads the core semantics. It avoids verbosity. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of essential details, so it is not effectively structured for the agent's needs.
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?
Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema) the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify concepts like partial update semantics beyond omissions, how to identify the store (likely via 'name' or 'ref'), and what fields are used for. The description does not explain what happens on failure.
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 schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not describe any individual parameter's purpose. It only gives a generic 'specified fields' which is not helpful for an agent to know what to put in fields like 'bucket', 'credential', or 'endpoint'.
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 states the tool updates specified fields of a store, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it is somewhat generic and doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like add_store or migrate_store. The agent must infer the context from field names.
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?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does imply that only fields needing changes are provided (omitted fields retain values), which is a usage hint, but there is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the store must already exist, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.