Updates an organization's LDAP settings, including enabled state, source, server connection, and user/group attribute mappings to control authentication and search behavior.
Updates the organization LDAP settings. PUT /cloudapi/v1/orgSettings/ldap
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The organization LDAP settings. — The updated organization LDAP settings. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, but the description adds nothing on top of that. For a PUT that replaces an entire nested settings object, it does not say whether unspecified fields are cleared, that 'enabled' is mandatory, or that omitting the password leaves it unchanged — a meaningful gap for a mutation of this shape.
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?
Two short sentences with no bloat, and the purpose leads. However, the second sentence is only the raw HTTP path, which duplicates the annotation title and adds no interpretive value.
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 deeply nested, mutation-heavy tool with no output schema, and the description does not cover replacement semantics, required 'enabled', or how it relates to sync/test/get LDAP siblings. The schema is rich but the description leaves the agent without operational context.
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% and the nested LDAP settings are thoroughly documented in-schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes nothing about the single 'body' parameter or how settingsSource/definedSettings interact.
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: it updates the organization's LDAP settings, distinct from provider_update_org_settings and provider_get_org_ldap_settings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.
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 rather than provider_update_org_settings, provider_sync_ldap, provider_test_ldap, or provider_get_org_ldap_settings. No prerequisites (admin rights, org scope) or configuration-flow context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.