hex-mcp-server

hex-batch-update-compute-profile

Update kernel image and size across multiple Hex projects in one operation. Provide project IDs and a compute profile to apply changes in batch.

Instructions

Batch update kernel image/size on multiple projects.

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": {
      "projectIds": "<projectIds>",
      "computeProfile": "<computeProfile>"
    },
    "name": "hex-batch-update-compute-profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectIds`	Yes	Array of project UUIDs
`computeProfile`	Yes	{ image, size }

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'update' but omits whether the operation is reversible, what permissions it needs, how partial failures across the project list are handled, and whether the change is immediate or queued. For a batch mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though it is so terse that it omits useful context rather than being wasteful.

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?

For a batch mutation with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should clarify batch semantics (partial failure behavior, limits) and permission requirements. It leaves an agent without enough to invoke it confidently in edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents projectIds (array of UUIDs) and computeProfile ({ image, size }). The description's 'kernel image/size' phrasing loosely corroborates the nested object but adds no format, validation, or defaulting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (batch update) and resource (kernel image/size, i.e. compute profile) scoped to multiple projects, so an agent can identify the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling mutation tools like hex-update-project, but the 'batch' + 'compute profile' framing is distinctive enough.

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 on when to use this over single-project alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The word 'batch' implies multi-project use but the description never says when this is preferable to updating projects individually.

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

Deploy Server