@kognar/nginx-manager-mcp-server

Update stream

npm_update_stream

Update an existing stream's configuration, including ports, forwarding settings, certificate, and metadata.

Instructions

Update a stream.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "npm_update_stream"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`meta`	No
`incoming_port`	No
`certificate_id`	No
`tcp_forwarding`	No
`udp_forwarding`	No
`forwarding_host`	No
`forwarding_port`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the update is partial or full, required permissions, side effects, or error states. The description carries the full disclosure burden but provides nothing.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (3 words) but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It wastes the opportunity to provide essential details.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no information on return values, error handling, or relationship to stream lifecycle.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters including a complex nested 'meta' object, the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not explain required fields, permissible values, or parameter relationships.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Update a stream' is a tautology that merely restates the title without specifying what aspects are updated or how it differs from other update tools. It provides no unique context to distinguish from sibling tools like npm_update_dead_host.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, enable/disable stream tools). There is no indication of prerequisites or disclaimers.

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

Deploy Server