Hevo MCP Server

update_source_config

Modify source configuration of an existing pipeline by providing pipeline ID and changed fields for host, port, database, or credentials.

Instructions

Modify the SOURCE configuration of an existing pipeline (host, port, database, credentials, etc.).

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": {
      "pipeline_id": "<pipeline_id>",
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "update_source_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`config`	Yes	Source-specific config. Include only fields you want to change.
`pipeline_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosure. It only mentions modification without addressing permissions, side effects, reversibility, or whether changes are immediate. For a mutation tool, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description explains what it modifies but lacks return behavior, prerequisites, and effect on pipeline state. The nested config object and lack of schema coverage on pipeline_id suggest more context is needed for confident use.

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 describes 'config' as source-specific with partial updates. The description adds concrete examples of source settings, augmenting the schema's generic phrasing. However, it does not fully document possible fields or provide guidance on pipeline_id, so it only moderately compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Modify' and resource 'SOURCE configuration of an existing pipeline' to clearly state the tool's function. Concrete examples (host, port, database, credentials) establish scope and naturally differentiate it from the sibling update_pipeline_config.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (modifying source-specific pipeline settings) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the sibling update_pipeline_config exists, explicit guidance on when not to use this tool would be stronger.

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

Deploy Server