Skip to main content
Glama
williamamed

mcp-polizei

by williamamed

Actualizar cliente OAuth

update_oauth_client

Update an existing OAuth client's configuration using its internal UUID. Modify fields like name, redirect URIs, scopes, grants, and client secret to keep client settings current.

Instructions

Actualiza los datos de un cliente OAuth. El id interno (UUID) es obligatorio y se incluye el tenant. El campo name sí se persiste. El clientId no identifica al cliente para actualizar (usa id).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID interno (UUID) del cliente
metaNo
nameNoNombre del cliente
extraNo
grantsNo
scopesNo
tenantNoID del tenant (default: tenant activo de la sesión)
clientIdNo
clientSecretNo
redirectUrisNoURIs de redirección tras login (redirect_uri / callback)
postLogoutRedirectUrisNoURIs de redirección de fin de sesión (logout)
openidIncludePermissionsNoIncluir permisos en el id_token (meta.openid_include_permissions)
accessTokenIncludePermissionsNoIncluir permisos en el access token (meta.access_token_include_permissions)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions that the name field is persisted (implying other fields may not be), but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether updates are partial or full, or any error behavior. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is concise, with no superfluous words, and directly communicates the essential points in two sentences.

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 tool has 13 parameters including nested objects and boolean toggles, the description is far too brief to convey how these fields behave, whether they are optional for updates, or how they interact with each other. It is not complete for a user to correctly use the tool.

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 covers only 54% of parameters, and many fields (clientId, clientSecret, grants, scopes, extra) lack descriptions. The tool description adds some semantic context for id and name, but many parameters remain unexplained.

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 the action ('Actualiza los datos de un cliente OAuth') and distinguishes the identifier (internal UUID vs clientId), making its purpose obvious.

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?

It explicitly clarifies that clientId is not the update identifier, which is a useful usage hint. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create/delete/list alternatives, though the context implies this is for existing clients.

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