Updates organization-level content library and quarantine settings through VCF Automation, enabling administrators to control external library subscriptions and file inspection.
Updates the organization settings accessible to the user. PUT /cloudapi/v1/orgSettings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | The organization settings. — The updated organization 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 readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the endpoint path (already in the annotation title) and notably omits the critical PUT behavior — whether omitted boolean fields are reset to their false defaults — plus any 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?
Only two short sentences, with the purpose stated first. The second sentence is a raw endpoint path that duplicates the annotation title and earns little, but the overall text is not bloated.
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 an org-wide settings mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description should clarify replace-vs-merge semantics and required authorization. It leaves both unaddressed, so an agent cannot safely predict the effect of submitting a partial body.
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 single nested body parameter's three boolean flags are fully documented inline, so the schema does the work. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline for full-coverage schemas.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ("Updates the organization settings") and scopes it with "accessible to the user," which hints at the difference from provider_update_org and provider_update_org_ldap_settings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction from names 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus provider_update_org, provider_update_org_ldap_settings, or provider_get_org_settings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The only usage signal is the implicit verb, leaving routing entirely to sibling-name guessing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.