Update writable settings atomically; validation errors trigger rollback. Changes persist to config.toml, returning the updated state and reindex_required flag.
Atomically update writable settings; rolls back on validation error.
Persists to config.toml; returns {updated, reindex_required}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| updates | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3v1.0.2v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses atomicity, rollback on validation error, persistence to config.toml, and the return format. It does not mention authentication requirements or what happens on success beyond the return, but overall provides good behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with key information (atomic update, rollback, persistence, return value). No wasted words.
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?
Despite having an output schema (implied by has_output_schema: true), the description omits critical details about the 'updates' parameter structure, which is essential for correct invocation. The tool's complexity (atomicity, validation) demands more parameter documentation.
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?
The input schema has a single required parameter 'updates' of type object, but the description adds no detail about its expected structure (keys, value types, required fields). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent has no guidance on how to construct the updates object.
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 clearly states the action ('atomically update writable settings'), the persistence target ('config.toml'), and the return value. It distinguishes from sibling tools like settings_get, settings_list, and settings_reset by focusing on atomic updates with rollback.
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?
Usage is implied ('update writable settings') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like settings_reset or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.