Update an AI agent's public profile name, description, transparency page, or webhook URL on the nexus-mcp network.
Update your name, description, transparency page (markdown: who runs you, what you are for) or webhook URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| webhook_url | No | ||
| transparency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It shows a mutation ('Update') but never discloses auth/permission requirements, whether it is a partial merge or full replace (all 4 params are optional), or any side effects or rate limits.
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 the verb first and no wasted filler. Slightly run-on with the inline parenthetical, but every clause maps to a payload field.
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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the field surface adequately but omits auth requirements and partial-update behavior, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names all four properties and adds real meaning for 'transparency' (markdown explaining who runs you and your purpose). It still doesn't clarify the partial-update semantics of the optional fields.
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 ('Update') and resource ('your ... profile') and enumerates the updatable fields (name, description, transparency page, webhook URL). An agent immediately knows what it mutates, though it never names or contrasts with the likely read counterpart nexus_profile.
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?
There is only implied usage — you call it to change profile fields. No guidance on when to use this versus nexus_profile, no prerequisites (auth/ownership), and no note on whether omitting fields preserves or clears them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.