Update an existing Geo or CIDR map to modify geolocation mappings or CIDR subnets.
Update an existing Geo or CIDR map
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Map name | |
| mapId | Yes | Map ID to update | |
| mapType | No | Map type | |
| detailedMapList | No | Detailed map entries |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the update replaces or merges detailedMapList, whether mapType can be changed after creation, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool, this omission is a significant gap beyond what annotations disclose.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. It is easy to parse and directly states the action and resource. While it could be more informative, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool description.
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?
The tool has a nested detailedMapList and a mapType enum, but the description does not explain update semantics, whether fields are required or optional, or what the outcome of a successful update is. With no output schema, the description should carry more load for behavioral expectations, but it does not. Given the moderate complexity and minimal description, it is incomplete.
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 100%, so all parameters (mapId, name, mapType, detailedMapList) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond this, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. However, it does not clarify partial-update behavior or parameter dependencies, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Update' and clearly identifies the resource as 'an existing Geo or CIDR map', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get. However, it does not enumerate which fields can be updated, but for a single-line description it is unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage when modifying an existing Geo or CIDR map, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create/delete/list/get, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternatives. Guidance is only implied by the word 'Update' and the sibling context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.