bgp_session_editModify BGP session settings in LibreNMS by supplying the session ID and a payload containing fields such as description to update the session.
Edit BGP session in LibreNMS by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bgp_id | Yes | BGP session ID | |
| payload | Yes | BGP session payload. Format: {"bgp_descr": "description"} |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply restates the operation without adding behavioral details. Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, but the description does not explain side effects, which fields are overwritten, or any permission or rate-limit considerations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element contributes to the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple two-parameter edit with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description identifies the resource, system, and identifier. The schema and annotations carry most behavioral and safety context, though adding usage guidance would make it fully complete.
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%, with bgp_id and payload both described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the operation target.
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?
States a specific verb ('Edit'), a clear resource ('BGP session'), and the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as bgp_session_get and bgp_sessions.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer bgp_session_get for retrieval or how this relates to other BGP tools. The intended context must be inferred solely from the verb 'Edit' and the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.