cargoshipper-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cf_update_zone_setting

Update a CloudFlare zone setting such as SSL, HTTPS enforcement, or security level by providing zone ID, setting name, and new value.

Instructions

Update a specific zone setting

Args: zone_id: CloudFlare zone ID setting: Setting name (e.g., 'ssl', 'always_use_https', 'security_level') value: New value for the setting

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "zone_id": "<zone_id>",
      "setting": "<setting>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "cf_update_zone_setting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zone_id`	Yes
`setting`	Yes
`value`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the update action but omits side effects, permission requirements, or error handling. The simple mutation warrants minimal disclosure but still lacks critical details.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and to the point, with a clear structure: one sentence followed by argument list. No unnecessary words, though the argument list repeats schema names.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks context on available settings, value types, and side effects. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but could be more helpful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides example values for 'setting' (e.g., 'ssl') but not for 'zone_id' or 'value'. It clarifies the parameter purpose but not valid formats or constraints.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The tool name and description clearly indicate the action (update) and resource (zone setting). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cf_get_zone_settings (read-only) and cf_create_dns_record (different resource).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cf_get_zone_settings. No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.

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