Simpler.Asia

myinvois_template_update

Edit a saved line-item preset. When line_items_json is included it is re-parsed and every item re-validated exactly as create does, so an edited template cannot drift into a shape myinvois_invoice_generate would reject. NEXT: myinvois_template_list to find the id.

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": "myinvois_template_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The myinvois_template id (myinvois_template_list shows them).
`name`	No
`notes`	No
`description`	No
`payment_terms`	No
`line_items_json`	No
`expected_updated_at`	No	Optional compare-and-set guard: the updated_at from a prior myinvois_template_list/read. Mismatch returns CONFLICT with the current value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), the description discloses real behavior: line_items_json is re-parsed and every item re-validated exactly as create does, guaranteeing the template stays compatible with myinvois_invoice_generate. It does not mention whether omitted fields are left unchanged or what happens on validation failure, but the key risk is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the important line_items_json caveat, then the next step. The clause about not drifting into a shape myinvois_invoice_generate would reject is slightly wordy but justifies itself by explaining the validation guarantee.

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?

For a mutation tool with seven params, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description covers the highest-risk surface (line-item re-validation) and the id-discovery workflow, while annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is silence on how the other simple fields behave on partial updates.

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 only 29% (only id and expected_updated_at are documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for line_items_json (re-parsed, re-validated against create rules) but says nothing about name, notes, description, or payment_terms, leaving five of seven params undocumented in prose.

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?

"Edit a saved line-item preset" gives a specific verb (edit) and resource (saved line-item preset/template), which is distinguishable from myinvois_template_create, _read, _delete and from myinvois_invoice_generate mentioned inline. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling template tools, but the resource 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 gives a workflow pointer ("NEXT: myinvois_template_list to find the id") but never says when to edit vs. delete-and-recreate a template, nor any preconditions. Usage is implied by the verb and the NEXT step rather than stated as selection guidance.

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

All Simpler.Asia 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?