PineBill

Update customer

update_customer

Destructive

Update an existing customer record. Requires the customer ID and at least one field to update.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Customer ID to update
`name`	No	Customer name
`email`	No	Customer email address
`phone`	No	Customer phone number
`taxId`	No	Customer tax ID or VAT number
`address`	No	Customer billing address
`country`	No	Official ISO 3166-1 country name, e.g. "United States of America", "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "Canada"
`website`	No	Customer website URL
`zipCode`	No	Customer postal or ZIP code
`timezone`	No	Customer IANA timezone, for example America/New_York
`identifier`	No	Customer identifier, such as customer ID or tax number
`description`	No	Additional notes about the customer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one constraint the schema does not enforce — that at least one updatable field must be supplied alongside the ID — but it never clarifies partial-update semantics, i.e. whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, which matters most for a destructive update with 12 optional fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precondition, with no filler. Slightly more could be said about update semantics within a similarly compact footprint.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the parameter surface is well covered by structured fields. What remains missing is the behavior an agent most needs for a 12-field destructive update: whether this is a merge/patch or a replace, and what happens to fields left out.

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 every one of the 12 parameters is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description contributes the cross-parameter rule that at least one field is required, which the schema's 'required: [id]' does not express, but adds no field-level meaning beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing customer record'), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/fetch customer siblings. It does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast its scope, but the verb+resource pairing is 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?

The description supplies a precondition ('Requires the customer ID and at least one field to update'), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and never points to alternatives such as create_customer for new records or delete_customer for removal.

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

All PineBill tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?