haus

update_appliance

Update an appliance's details; omitted fields keep their current value. Rejects the update if the resulting warranty expiry date would fall before the purchase date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID of the appliance to update.
`name`	No	New name for the appliance. Omit to leave unchanged.
`brand`	No	New manufacturer or brand name. Omit to leave unchanged.
`model`	No	New model name or number. Omit to leave unchanged.
`notes`	No	Freeform notes about the appliance. Omit to leave unchanged.
`purchaseDate`	No	Date the appliance was purchased, in YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit or send null to leave unchanged, send an empty string to clear it. Must not be after warrantyExpiryDate.
`serialNumber`	No	New manufacturer serial number. Omit to leave unchanged.
`warrantyDocumentId`	No	ID of a previously created document containing the warranty paperwork. Omit to leave unchanged.
`warrantyExpiryDate`	No	Date the manufacturer warranty expires, in YYYY-MM-DD format. Omit or send null to leave unchanged, send an empty string to clear it. Must not be before purchaseDate.
`insuranceDocumentId`	No	ID of a previously created document containing the insurance policy. Omit to leave unchanged.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'omitted fields keep their current value' clarifies partial-update semantics, and 'Rejects the update if...' discloses a validation rule. These go beyond the annotations and help the agent predict side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key behavioral rules without redundancy. Every clause earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema, sibling update tools), the description covers the most critical aspects: partial-update behavior and date validation. The rich input schema handles parameter details, and the output schema presumably describes return values, so the description is sufficiently complete for high-level usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented, but the description adds a unified semantic: omitted fields retain current values, which is not obvious from individual schema entries alone. It also highlights the cross-parameter validation constraint between purchaseDate and warrantyExpiryDate, adding contextual meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'update' with a clear resource 'appliance's details', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_appliance and delete_appliance. It also conveys the core behavior of partial updates, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: this tool updates an existing appliance, as indicated by 'Update an appliance's details' and the required 'id' parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with create_appliance or delete_appliance, nor state prerequisites such as the appliance needing to exist.

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

All haus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?