Skip to main content
Glama

pbs_notification_endpoint_update

Modify a Proxmox Backup Server notification endpoint (gotify, sendmail, smtp, webhook). Dry-run captures current config; confirm executes the update with optimistic locking.

Instructions

MUTATION: update a PBS notification endpoint. ep_type = gotify|sendmail|smtp|webhook. Dry-run by default — captures current config into the PLAN (secrets masked); confirm=True executes (PUT .../endpoints/{type}/{name}, synchronous — PBS returns null) and returns {"status": "ok", "result": None}. No snapshot primitive; re-apply the captured config to revert, or use pbs_notification_endpoint_create to make a new one instead. Needs PROXIMO_PBS_* config.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the existing notification endpoint to update.
digestNoOptimistic-lock: 64-char lowercase hex SHA-256 of the config PBS last returned. If set and stale, PBS rejects the update.
commentNoOptional free-text comment to set on the endpoint.
confirmNoFalse (default) returns a dry-run PLAN only; True executes the update.
disableNoTrue disables the endpoint; False re-enables it.
ep_typeYesNotification endpoint type: 'gotify', 'sendmail', 'smtp', or 'webhook'.
optionsNoType-specific fields to change, same shape as create. Credential-shaped keys (token/password/secret/header) are redacted from the PLAN preview and the audit ledger, but ARE sent to PBS on confirm=True.
proximo_targetNoWhich configured Proxmox target to run this call against — a target name from your multi-target config (a specific PVE/PBS/PMG/PDM box). Omit to use the single/default target from the environment; the selection applies only to this call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses mutation, dry-run behavior, synchronous execution, return format, secret masking in plans, and config requirements. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but covers key behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense but not verbose. It front-loads the core purpose and mutation flag. Each sentence adds information. Minor improvement could be breaking into bullet lists, but it remains clear and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the output schema exists (mentioned as context), the description adequately explains dry-run, return format, and config needs. It covers the main usage scenarios. Missing details like error responses or rate limits are not critical for a mutation tool with this level of detail.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond it: explains ep_type values, dry-run vs confirm behavior, and credential masking in options. It also notes that options are type-specific, which helps agent use the parameter correctly.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description starts with 'MUTATION: update a PBS notification endpoint', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It lists allowed ep_type values and implicitly differentiates from create and other endpoints. The purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains dry-run by default and confirm=True for execution, and mentions an alternative (pbs_notification_endpoint_create) for new endpoints. It lacks explicit prerequisites but provides sufficient context for typical use.

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

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/john-broadway/proximo'

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