Update the built-in HTTP Basic authentication gate, including enabling or disabling it, changing the username, and replacing the password from ARTEX_NEW_BASIC_PASSWORD or _FILE.
Change the built-in HTTP Basic gate. Replacement password comes from ARTEX_NEW_BASIC_PASSWORD or _FILE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| enabled | No | ||
| username | No | ||
| replace_password | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the new password is read from ARTEX_NEW_BASIC_PASSWORD or its _FILE variant. It says nothing about the confirm flag, whether the change is immediate or requires a restart, or the lockout risk of disabling the gate on a live server.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Brevity is not the problem here; the missing content is, so a 4 rather than 5.
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?
This is a security-sensitive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero percent parameter coverage, yet the description covers only the password source. An agent could not confidently set confirm, enabled, or username from this text alone.
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 all four parameters (confirm, enabled, username, replace_password) are undocumented in the schema. The description explains the password's source but never connects it to replace_password, and leaves confirm, enabled, and username entirely unexplained.
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?
"Change the built-in HTTP Basic gate" gives a verb and a resource, but "change" is ambiguous for a tool whose parameters cover enable/disable, username, and password replacement. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling artex_change_password, leaving the agent to guess which one touches the Basic-auth gate.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says whether this requires the server to be initialized, whether it takes effect live or after restart, or why one would pick this over artex_change_password or artex_login. The only hint at an alternative is the implicit env-var sourcing of the password.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.