Updates an automation node's settings by node ID using a JSON config, letting you change email templates or HTTP request options without rebuilding the workflow.
Update the configuration of a node (e.g., email templates, HTTP request settings)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| config | Yes | JSON string of the new configuration object | |
| node_id | Yes | The unique ID of the node |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that configuration is updated and gives examples, but does not explain whether the config replaces or merges with existing settings, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple update tool, though it could have used its brevity more effectively by including a usage distinction.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should convey more about mutation behavior and return expectations. It covers the basic action and parameter schema is complete, but leaves important operational details 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds examples of configuration content but no additional semantics about the JSON string structure or validation beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.
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: updating a node's configuration, with examples of what configuration may include. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling node_update tool, which likely handles general node updates, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus node_update or other node tools, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.