Skip to main content
Glama
omnara-ai

omnara

Official
by omnara-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

Update model provider config

model_providers_update
DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing model provider configuration to change its base URL, authentication, headers, endpoint path, or timeouts without recreating the provider.

Instructions

Update model provider config

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgIDYes
headersNoExtra HTTP headers sent with every request to this provider. Values are stored and returned as plain text; use secret_headers for keys and tokens. Replaces all headers when provided.
base_urlNoProvider endpoint base URL. Normal API mode requires a public HTTPS endpoint; localhost and loopback endpoints are accepted only when the API is running in insecure dev mode.
auth_kindNo
auth_optionsNoNon-secret authentication settings. Use an empty object with bearer_token. With api_key_header, set {"header_name":"..."}. With sigv4, set the AWS signing service and region.
endpoint_pathNoURL path under base_url. This changes where requests are sent, not which API format Omnara speaks.
secret_headersNoExtra HTTP headers whose values come from org-owned generic secrets, mapping header names to secret references. Replaces all secret headers when provided.
idle_timeout_msNoMaximum wait for response headers or the next response bytes, in milliseconds. Heartbeats count as activity. Local response processing does not consume this idle budget.
request_timeout_msNoTotal deadline for one provider attempt, including reasoning and response streaming, in milliseconds. Retries have separate deadlines.
credential_secret_idNo
modelProviderConfigIDYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured fields; the description adds nothing on top. It does not disclose the notable replace-semantics behavior implied by the schema (headers and secret_headers are said to replace all existing values), nor any permission requirements.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single sentence carries no content and wastes the opportunity to front-load scope or requirements. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one merely echoes the title.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive 11-parameter mutation across a nested config object with no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves the agent with no notion of required identifiers, replacement semantics, or validation constraints that the schema only partially spells out.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 11 parameters and only 64% schema description coverage, the description provides zero parameter meaning to compensate for the undocumented parameters (auth_kind, credential_secret_id, modelProviderConfigID). The rich field-level docs live in the schema, and the description adds nothing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing modelProviderConfigID or orgID. Nothing steers an agent between update/create/get in the model_providers_* family.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools