Skip to main content
Glama
dmanfx

mcp-hs4

by dmanfx

hs4.admin.system.config.set

Apply system-level configuration changes in HS4 with controlled admin mutations, including validation via dry-run and required approvals for auditable operations.

Instructions

Apply system-level config settings through admin controls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
valueYes
domainYesAdmin mutation domain; must be 'system'.
dryRunNoIf true, validates and simulates action without changing HS4.
intentNoHigh-level intent for this operation.
reasonNoReason/rationale for auditability.
confirmNoMust be true for mutating operations unless running dry-run.
riskLevelNoRisk classification for audit and change-control workflows.medium
changeTicketNoRequired when policy enforces change-ticket gating.
operationTierNoPrivilege tier for this mutation.operator
maintenanceWindowIdNoRequired for non-dry-run admin mutations.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose that this is a mutating operation requiring safety checks. It does not mention dry-run, confirmation, or other behavioral aspects even though the schema includes such parameters.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Single sentence is concise, but it lacks structure and does not front-load critical information like the need for confirmation or dry-run.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, admin context), the description is too minimal. It omits details about safety parameters, required fields, and any output behavior.

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 description coverage is high (82%), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool applies system-level config settings through admin controls, differentiating it from the getter sibling. However, it is generic and could specify that it modifies key-value pairs.

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 tool versus alternatives like get or other admin tools. No prerequisites or context about admin privileges are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dmanfx/mcp-hs4'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server