action1-mcp-server

Update Software Repository package settings

action1_update_package

Destructive

Modify software package settings within the repository. Update core details like name, vendor, and description to manage your software inventory.

Instructions

Update Software Repository package settings. Perm: manage_software_repository.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Request body
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.
`package_id`	Yes	Provide a specific package ID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`self`	No
`tool`	No
`type`	No
`scope`	No
`status`	No
`vendor`	No
`builtin`	No
`dry_run`	No
`versions`	No
`would_send`	No
`description`	No
`internal_notes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed19 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedInput schema / properties / body / description

Previous value: -"Request body (schema: object)"New value: +"Request body"

addedInput schema / properties / body / properties

Added value: +{
+  "description": {
+    "description": "The package description.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "internal_notes": {
+    "description": "Invisible comments.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "name": {
+    "description": "The package name.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "vendor": {
+    "description": "The package vendor.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / builtin
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / description
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / dry_run
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / id
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / internal_notes
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / name
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / scope
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / self
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / status
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / tool
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / type
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / vendor
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / versions
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / would_send
```
Added value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose the important behavior: destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the auth requirement (manage_software_repository), which is genuinely useful context beyond the structured fields, but it never mentions that changes are destructive or that a preview/confirm flow exists.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no padding; the purpose comes first and the permission second. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity leaves the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The schema and output schema are rich enough to carry parameter and return semantics, so the description only needs to supply judgment guidance. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool, it omits any warning about the effect of the change and any pointer to sibling tools, leaving the definition only minimally adequate.

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 100% and every parameter, including the dry_run default of true and the confirm 'YES' constant, is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update Software Repository package settings'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as action1_update_version or action1_create_package_version, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 only guidance is the permission string 'Perm: manage_software_repository', which is an authorization prerequisite, not a usage rule. Nothing states when to update package settings versus update a version or when this is preferable to get_software_repository_package first.

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

Deploy Server