Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vibeMK

vibeMK

by chexma
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vibemk_update_password

Update a stored password in CheckMK by specifying the identifier and new password value, along with optional owner, title, sharing, comment, and documentation URL.

Instructions

📝 Update password - Modify stored password

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ident": "<ident>"
    },
    "name": "vibemk_update_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identYesPassword identifier
ownerNoOwner user/group
titleNoPassword title
sharedNoShared with users/groups
commentNoPassword description
passwordNoPassword value
documentation_urlNoDocumentation URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.10

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description alone carries the transparency burden. It states that it modifies a stored password, but does not disclose side effects, whether fields are partially or fully replaced, or what happens when the identifier is invalid.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and to the point, with no unnecessary filler. The slight redundancy of 'Update' and 'Modify' is minor, but otherwise it is well-structured for quick consumption.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the schema covers all parameters, but the description lacks operational context such as what fields are mutable, whether the operation is partial or full replacement, and what the expected outcome or error behavior is. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, but the parameter meanings are reasonably clear from the schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update password' / 'Modify stored password') and the resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_password, delete_password, and get_passwords. No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_password or delete_password. The description does not mention prerequisites, partial-update semantics, or when an update is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools