Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
windy-word-mcp

windy-word-mcp

by sneakyfree
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

set_config

Set configuration settings by specifying a dotted-path and value, or providing a patch object with multiple updates. Changes apply immediately.

Instructions

Patch the config store. Pass EITHER {path, value} for a single dotted-path write (e.g. path="engine.model", value="small"), OR {patch: {...}} for a flat object of dotted-path → value pairs applied in order. Changes persist immediately.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "set_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoDotted path (e.g. "engine.model").
patchNoObject of dotted-path → value, applied in iteration order.
valueNoValue for the single-path form.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.11.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that changes persist immediately and explains the dotted-path syntax. But it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or whether values are validated.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action ('Patch the config store'), no wasted words. Each sentence is essential.

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?

Covers the two input forms and persistence, but omits return value (e.g., success/failure). For a mutation tool, more detail on output could be helpful, but overall adequate for selection.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining the two usage patterns and that patch is applied in iteration order. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 description clearly states it patches the config store and distinguishes two usage forms (single path-value or patch object). This differentiates it from sibling tools like set_setting or describe_setting.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly tells when to use each form: EITHER {path, value} for single write OR {patch} for batch. It also notes immediate persistence. However, it doesn't specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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