updateImageUpdate custom image name by its id - Update name of the custom image
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imageId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| updateImageBody | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not explain the destructive implications (e.g., overwriting the existing name), any side effects, or what happens to referenced entities. The description merely restates the operation without revealing behavioral traits.
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 very short and front-loaded, containing only 11 words. It avoids verbosity and gets to the point quickly. The slight redundancy ('Update... - Update') is a minor flaw but does not significantly harm clarity or usability.
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?
With no output schema, the description should convey what the response looks like or what success criteria exist; it does neither. It also fails to mention that updateImageBody can include both name and description, leaving important context out. For a mutation tool with nested parameters, the description is too minimal to be self-sufficient.
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 tool description mentions 'by its id' which loosely maps to the imageId parameter, and 'update name' hints at the name parameter within updateImageBody. However, the schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain other parameters like x-request-id or the description field within updateImageBody. The limited hints are insufficient given the coverage gap.
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 verb ('Update') and resource ('custom image name') and identifies the targeting mechanism ('by its id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createCustomImage and deleteImage. However, it narrowly says 'name' when the schema shows the operation can also update 'description', making the stated purpose slightly incomplete.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createCustomImage, deleteImage, or other update tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios like renaming an image. The description is purely definitional and lacks contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.