location_editUpdate a LibreNMS location's latitude and longitude by ID or name to correct or maintain network site coordinates.
Edit a location in LibreNMS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | Yes | Location patchable fields: - lat: Latitude coordinate (decimal degrees) - lng: Longitude coordinate (decimal degrees) | |
| location | Yes | Location ID or name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.12.0Input schema / properties / location / descriptionPrevious value: -"Location identifier or name"New value: +"Location ID or name"v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, giving the agent the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond this—it does not explain what gets modified, whether the edit is partial or full, or any permissions required. No contradiction exists, but there is no added behavioral context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is arguably under-specified, but for conciseness and structure, it is efficient and clear.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, the description need not explain return values or parameter formats. However, for a destructive edit tool with nested payload and multiple location siblings, the description is minimally viable—it omits any note about modifying an existing location, whether the edit is destructive, or how it relates to location_add/delete. The annotations and schema carry most of the context, but some gaps remain.
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 both parameters and the nested payload fields fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('a location in LibreNMS'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like location_add, location_delete, location_get, or location_set_maintenance, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as location_add or location_delete. It is not misleading, but it offers no usage context at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.