Update an existing nana800 automation scheme's name, description, or enabled status by scheme ID to keep automations current without recreating them.
Update an existing scheme properties
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | No | Enable or disable the scheme | |
| scheme_id | No | The unique ID of the scheme to update (uses MCP_SCHEME_ID env if not provided) | |
| description | No | New description for the scheme | |
| scheme_name | No | New name for the scheme |
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 says only that properties are updated, without disclosing whether the operation is a partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, required permissions, or reversibility.
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 text, but it is under-informative and grammatically awkward ('an existing scheme properties'). Conciseness is achieved at the cost of useful detail.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify partial-update semantics, permission requirements, or what a successful update returns, leaving key agent-relevant context unaddressed.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the input schema, including the useful MCP_SCHEME_ID environment fallback for scheme_id. The description adds no meaning beyond 'properties', so the baseline of 3 is 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?
The description states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('scheme'), making the core action identifiable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings such as scheme_create or scheme_delete, and the vague phrase 'properties' leaves the set of updatable fields implicit.
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 tool versus alternatives like scheme_create, scheme_get, or scheme_delete. It also omits prerequisites, such as whether a scheme must exist or whether partial updates are allowed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.