Updates an existing OIDC relying party by ID so you can revise client name, redirect URIs, scopes, and PKCE settings.
Updates a specific OIDC relying party. Updates an OIDC relying party. PUT /cloudapi/1.0.0/openIdProvider/relyingParties/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | OIDC relying party's ID (path) | |
| body | Yes | Information about a OIDC relying party. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever. Critically, it does not disclose that this is a PUT (full replacement) on a nested body where omitted fields like scope or isPublic may be reset, and it does not mention permission requirements.
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 lines where one short clause would suffice: the opening sentence is duplicated and the raw endpoint path is repeated from the annotations' title. The wording is not front-loaded with anything actionable.
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?
This is a mutation on a nested object with required fields (clientName, redirectUris) and no output schema; the description should say that the body replaces the relying party and which fields are immutable on update. As written, an agent could send a partial body and unknowingly clear configuration.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents the id path parameter and every body property, including the note that isGlobal is read-only on update. The description contributes nothing beyond restating the path template.
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?
The verb+resource is nominally clear ('Updates a specific OIDC relying party'), but the same sentence is repeated verbatim and then the raw HTTP path is dumped, adding no scope or distinction. Nothing separates it from siblings like provider_register_oidc_relying_party, provider_get_oidc_relying_party, provider_regenerate_oidc_relying_party_secret, or provider_query_oidc_relying_parties.
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 indication of when to use this versus provider_register_oidc_relying_party (create), provider_regenerate_oidc_relying_party_secret (rotate secret), or provider_get_oidc_relying_party (read). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.