tie-mcp-server

update_directory

Update an Active Directory instance by modifying its IP, DNS, name, ports, and data collection settings. Specify the infrastructure and directory IDs to apply changes.

Instructions

Update directory instance.

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": {
      "infrastructureId": "<infrastructureId>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Path parameter: id
`body`	Yes	Validates the PATCH /directory/:id request
`infrastructureId`	Yes	Path parameter: infrastructureId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits. There are no annotations to compensate. It does not mention whether updates are partial or full, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., service restart).

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely concise (four words) but at the expense of completeness. It fails to earn its place by providing necessary context. A well-structured description would front-load key information without being excessively terse.

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 input schema (nested object with multiple fields), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (no output schema) nor the effect of updating various fields. Sibling tools further emphasize the need for clarity.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. While top-level parameters have descriptions, nested body properties (e.g., ip, dns, name) lack descriptions and the description does not clarify their purpose or constraints. Schema description coverage is 100% only for top-level params, but nested fields are undocumented.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Update directory instance' clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (directory instance), but it is too generic and does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_directory or delete_directory. It lacks specificity on what aspects of the directory can be updated.

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 (e.g., create_directory for new instances, delete_directory for removal). There are no prerequisites or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Deploy Server