Updates an existing VCF Automation action by ID with new configuration details, letting you modify action properties such as runtime, entrypoint, and source.
Update an action Updates the action with the new supplied state PUT /abx/api/resources/actions/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action (path) | |
| body | Yes | Properties of the action to patch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'new supplied state' hints at full-replace PUT semantics rather than partial update, which is genuinely useful, but the description does not say whether omitted fields are cleared or what a successful response contains.
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?
Three short lines, front-loaded with the verb and state-change summary, with no filler. The path echo essentially repeats the tool title and adds little, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
For a mutation whose body is a large nested object and with no output schema, the description should say what replacement semantics mean for omitted fields and what comes back. Annotations cover the safety flags, but replace-vs-merge behavior and return shape remain unstated.
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 coverage is 100% (id is documented as the path ID, body as 'Properties of the action to patch'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the body's required fields (actionType, entrypoint, name, orgId, runtime) or how they must relate to the existing action, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Update an action') and the second line clarifies it replaces the action with the supplied state. However, it never distinguishes this PUT from the sibling abx_patch_actions_by_id or abx_create_action_version, so the agent must infer which mutation to pick.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the PATCH alternative in the sibling set, and no preconditions (e.g. that a version must exist or that the full required state is supplied). The agent gets context only from the raw HTTP path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.