Vitalli

stackwell_update_supplement

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a supplement's details (only the given fields change).

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": {
      "supplementId": "<supplementId>"
    },
    "name": "stackwell_update_supplement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form`	No
`name`	No
`brand`	No
`notes`	No
`inStock`	No
`currency`	No
`dosageUnit`	No
`productUrl`	No
`totalUnits`	No
`supplementId`	Yes
`defaultDosage`	No
`remainingUnits`	No
`dosesPerPackage`	No
`pricePerPackage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds patch-style semantics beyond the annotations: omitted fields are left unchanged. However, it does not explain the destructiveHint=true annotation, what kinds of changes are considered destructive, or failure behavior.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded, though very minimal.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits field-level guidance, required identifier semantics, and mutation failure behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, and the description provides only generic partial-update semantics. It does not explain the required supplementId or what any of the 13 optional fields mean.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: updating a supplement's details. It is clearly distinct from creation or archiving siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby update tools such as stackwell_update_schedule_entry.

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?

The only usage-like information is that only the given fields change, which is behavioral rather than selection guidance. It does not say when to use this instead of archive_supplement, create_supplement, or other update tools.

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

All Vitalli 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?