Skip to main content
Glama

apply_config

Apply multi-section daemon configuration as an all-or-nothing change, or run a dry run to validate and preview planned changes without writing.

Instructions

Declaratively apply a multi-section daemon config document (all-or-nothing).

    A dry run needs neither an ``If-Match`` nor an idempotency key.
    

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNotrue = validate and return the plan (what would change) with zero writes; nothing is built, deployed or audited as a change.
if_matchNoETag of the whole config, sent as ``If-Match`` (the daemon requires it on a real apply; 409 ``config.stale`` when it no longer matches). Omit and the current ETag is read and used for you; ``*`` matches unconditionally. Not needed when ``dry_run`` is true.
sectionsYesDesired state as ``{section: {key: value}}``. Only the sections named are touched; each is merged and validated like ``set_config``'s ``values`` (an omitted key keeps its value, null deletes a NULLABLE key — a null on a non-nullable one is a 422 — and an unknown key is a 422). One invalid key rejects the whole document.
idempotency_keyNoCaller-chosen key: a retry with the same key replays the first result instead of acting twice. Omit and a fresh key is minted per call, so each call acts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two genuinely important traits: the apply is atomic ('all-or-nothing', one invalid key rejects the whole document per schema) and a dry run is side-effect-free and exempt from both If-Match and idempotency keys. It still leaves out permission/auth requirements and what the dry-run plan response looks like.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the atomicity guarantee front-loaded and the dry-run caveat immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus the rich schema documentation covers what an agent needs: atomicity, the dry-run escape hatch, and the stale-ETag/validation failure modes. Nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics that the individual fields only partially state: that a dry run needs neither an If-Match nor an idempotency key. That relational constraint is useful and slightly exceeds what the schema spells out for idempotency_key.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('declaratively apply a multi-section daemon config document') plus the key semantic of the operation ('all-or-nothing'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling set_config, whose merge semantics it only references indirectly via the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'declaratively apply' and 'all-or-nothing' — an agent can infer this is the whole-document path versus set_config's incremental path — but the description never names that alternative or states when to prefer one over the other. The dry-run sentence guides parameter choice rather than tool selection.

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