Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sylvia-iot-mcp

sylvia-iot-mcp

by woofdogtw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

unit_update

Update a unit's display name or replace its additional information in the IoT management system.

Instructions

Update a unit's display name or info.

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": {
      "unitId": "<unitId>"
    },
    "name": "unit_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
infoNoOther information (full replacement).
nameNoNew display name.
unitIdYesThe unit ID to update.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only says 'update' and does not mention that the info field is a full replacement, how partial updates behave, or any side effects or requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is concise and scannable, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral nuance.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with a nested full-replacement object and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not communicate the full-replacement behavior, the required unitId, or any operational context, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to the name and info parameters but adds little beyond the schema, and it does not mention the required unitId parameter or the full-replacement semantics of info.

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 states a clear action ('Update'), a resource ('unit'), and the specific attributes being changed ('display name or info'). It is distinguishable from the create/get/delete sibling tools, though 'info' is vague and not elaborated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like unit_create, unit_get, or unit_delete. No prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools