update_groups_ai_providers_settingsUpdate AI provider assignments for a group by providing default, audio, and image provider IDs. Configure which AI services handle each task.
Update Ai Provider Settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accept-language | No | ||
| audioProviderId | Yes | ||
| imageProviderId | Yes | ||
| defaultProviderId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.20.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only repeats the update action. It does not state whether this is a full replacement of settings, whether null values are meaningful, what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed.
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 short and front-loaded but is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It contains no structure that helps an agent understand scope, parameters, or behavior.
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?
Despite an output schema being present, the description omits all contextual information needed to invoke the tool correctly: the scope (group settings), the meaning of the required provider IDs, and behavior on update. This is materially incomplete for a mutation endpoint with no 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the three provider-id parameters or accept-language. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, with no explanation of what defaultProviderId, audioProviderId, imageProviderId, or accept-language mean in this context.
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?
Description 'Update Ai Provider Settings' essentially restates the tool name/title and names no specific fields or scope. It provides a verb and object, but does not differentiate this settings-update tool from siblings like update_groups_ai_providers_providers_by_provider or clarify what 'settings' means.
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?
No guidance is given for when to call this tool versus list_groups_ai_providers_settings or update_groups_ai_providers_providers_by_provider. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.