Skip to main content
Glama
jfrog

JFrog MCP Server

Official
by jfrog

jfrog_update_permission_target

Modify permission targets in the JFrog Platform to adjust user and group access rights for resources like artifacts, release bundles, and builds. Define specific actions and patterns.

Instructions

Update an existing permission target in the JFrog platform

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the permission target to update
targetYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'jfrog_update_permission_target' tool. Destructures args into name and target, reconstructs the full permission target object, and calls the underlying updatePermissionTarget API function.
    handler: async (args: any) => {
      const { name, target } = args;
      return await updatePermissionTarget(name, { name, ...target });
    }
  • Core helper function that performs the actual HTTP PUT request to the JFrog API to update a permission target.
    export async function updatePermissionTarget(name: string, permissionTarget: z.infer<typeof PermissionTargetSchema>) {
      const response = await jfrogRequest(`/access/api/v2/permissions/${name}`, {
        method: "PUT",
        body: permissionTarget
      });
      return PermissionTargetSchema.parse(response);
    }
  • Zod schema definition for PermissionTarget, used in the tool's input schema (target field omits name).
    const PermissionTargetSchema = z.object({
      name: z.string(),
      resources: z.object({
        artifact: ArtifactResourceSchema.optional(),
        release_bundle: ReleaseBundleResourceSchema.optional(),
        build: BuildResourceSchema.optional()
      }),
      created_by: z.string().optional(),
      modified_by: z.string().optional()
    });
  • Input schema for the 'jfrog_update_permission_target' tool, specifying name and partial target.
    inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(z.object({
      name: z.string().describe("The name of the permission target to update"),
      target: PermissionTargetSchema.omit({ name: true })
    })),
  • Local registration of the tool as 'updatePermissionTargetTool' in the PermissionsTools array, which is later imported and spread into the global tools list.
    export const PermissionsTools = [
      listPermissionTargetsTool,
      getPermissionTargetTool,
      createPermissionTargetTool,
      updatePermissionTargetTool,
      deletePermissionTargetTool,
      getPermissionResourceTool,
      updatePermissionResourceTool,
      replacePermissionResourceTool,
      deletePermissionResourceTool
    ]; 
  • tools/index.ts:13-23 (registration)
    Global registration of all tools, including spread of PermissionsTools which contains 'jfrog_update_permission_target'.
    export const tools =[
      ...RepositoryTools,
      ...BuildsTools,
      ...RuntimeTools,
      ...AccessTools,
      ...AQLTools,
      ...CatalogTools,
      ...CurationTools,
      ...PermissionsTools,
      ...ArtifactSecurityTools,
    ];
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a complex permission management tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and purpose, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important contextual information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a permission target is, what fields can be updated, what the expected response looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The combination of complex schema and complete lack of behavioral context makes this description inadequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with only the 'name' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the structure of the 'target' object, the meaning of 'resources', or how permissions are configured. The baseline is 3 since schema coverage is moderate, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented 'target' parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing permission target in the JFrog platform'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'jfrog_create_permission_target' by specifying 'existing' rather than new creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'jfrog_update_permission_resource' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'jfrog_update_permission_resource' or 'jfrog_replace_permission_resource'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing permission target), nor does it specify what constitutes a valid update versus when other tools might be more appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jfrog/mcp-jfrog'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server