Update an existing service's configuration by supplying the service ID and setting a new name, base URL, or description.
Update an existing service configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Service name | |
| base_url | No | Base URL for the service | |
| service_id | Yes | Service ID | |
| description | No | Service description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the fact that it updates configuration, but provides no information about update semantics (partial vs full overwrite), idempotency, permissions required, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, short sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is perfectly concise, though the brevity yields vague semantics. The structure is appropriate, earning a high score for efficiency despite the content gap.
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?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description must compensate by explaining update behavior, parameter interplay, and likely constraints. It does none of this. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no return format, the definition 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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only the generic word 'configuration', which maps to the properties but does not explain whether fields are optional updates or require strict patch semantics. This meets the baseline but adds no additional meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('update') and a broad resource ('service configuration'), and specifies it applies to an existing service, which distinguishes it from create_service. However, it does not enumerate which fields can be updated or clarify the relationship to configure_service_auth, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for modifying an existing service and not for creation, nor does it point to configure_service_auth for authentication settings. An agent must infer use cases from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.