tie-mcp-server

update_application_settings

Update application settings including TLS, email sender, SMTP configuration, default roles, and user registration options.

Instructions

Update the application settings

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_application_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Application settings

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Update', implying mutation, but provides no details on behavioral traits like whether the update is a full replacement or partial, what happens to unset fields, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but fails to disclose key behaviors.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded and easy to read, yet fails to earn its place by omitting crucial context. A more detailed description would not harm conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of the nested input object (20+ fields) and the absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the semantics of the update operation, such as whether it replaces all settings or merges, or what the response looks like. The agent lacks guidance on how to use this tool effectively.

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 100% (the body parameter has a description 'Application settings'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does not mislead. The schema itself defines the parameters adequately.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'Update the application settings', identifying the verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about which settings are updated, though the schema provides detail. It does not differentiate from sibling update tools like 'update_user' or 'update_role', but the resource name is distinct.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as admin permissions, or situations where this tool should not be used. The existence of 'get_application_settings' implies a read counterpart, but no usage context is given.

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

Deploy Server