Modify an existing port forwarding rule by ID. Pass any subset of fields to patch its forwarding configuration.
Update an existing port forwarding rule by id. Pass any subset of fields to patch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The _id of the rule to update | |
| payload | Yes | Partial rule fields to update (name, enabled, proto, fwd, fwd_port, dst_port, src, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key PATCH behavior ('Pass any subset of fields to patch'), which is valuable and beyond the tool name's implication of a full update. However, it does not disclose what happens when the id is not found, whether it returns the updated rule, or any side effects. This is partial disclosure, not complete.
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 two short sentences with zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded ('Update an existing port forwarding rule by id'), and the essential patching behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 description is not complete enough for a mutating tool without an output schema. It fails to explain the return value or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the id does not exist). It also does not relate itself to sibling tools such as ensure_port_forward_rule or get_port_forward_rules, leaving the agent without guidance on prerequisites or fallback paths. Several relevant contextual details are missing.
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 the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds 'by id' and 'subset of fields to patch', which mildly reinforces the payload's 'Partial rule fields to update' but does not introduce new semantic meaning. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Update an existing port forwarding rule by id' – a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('port forwarding rule'), and a specific identifier method ('by id'). It also says 'Pass any subset of fields to patch', which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_port_forward_rules, ensure_port_forward_rule, and delete_port_forward_rule. An agent can confidently know what this tool does without ambiguity.
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?
The description implies usage context: it is for modifying an already-existing rule ('existing') by id with partial fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as ensure_port_forward_rule (which likely creates or updates) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it earns a mid-range score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.