Reconfigure a live capability using its ID and config object without silently enabling writes. Apply updates to runtime behavior while keeping write access off by default.
Reconfigure a live capability (same path as mcp_update). Does not silently enable writes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| config | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating/open nature is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful guarantee beyond that ('Does not silently enable writes'), but says nothing about merge-vs-replace semantics for config, reversibility, or effect on a running capability.
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, front-loaded with the action and no filler. The parenthetical is the only slightly wasteful/ambiguous element.
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?
A live-state mutation tool with an open-ended nested config object, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation needs more than two sentences. Nothing explains what a 'capability' is here, what config accepts, or what the caller should expect afterward.
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% for two required parameters, and the description adds no meaning for either. The 'config' parameter is a free-form nested object (additionalProperties: true) whose expected keys are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess at the shape.
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+resource: 'Reconfigure a live capability'. It gestures at the sibling relationship with '(same path as mcp_update)', which helps separate it from capability_register / capability_unregister, though the parenthetical is cryptic rather than clarifying. Purpose is clear but the line against mcp_update is fuzzy.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. '(same path as mcp_update)' implies overlap with a sibling but does not tell the agent which to pick or under what conditions, so usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.