fynk MCP

by com.fynk.app

Overview Discussions Admin

Update template party

update-template-party

Destructive

Update an existing party on a template.

Use this tool when:

The user wants to change a party's role label, entity details, or scope
The user wants to link an existing external party to a saved account party, or unlink it again

Only send the fields you want to change. reference is the party's role label on the template (e.g. "Employer").

Account party linkage:

Send account_party_uuid (from list-account-parties) to link the party to a saved account party. While linked, only reference may be changed; entity_name, address, and scope cannot be sent.
Send account_party_uuid as null to unlink the party, turning it back into an external party whose entity details and scope you can then set.

Use get-template-info to discover the parties on a template and their UUIDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	When internal_and_external, collaborators from this party may change the party's information. Only for external (non account-linked) parties.
`address`	No	Party's address. Only for external (non account-linked) parties.
`reference`	No	Generic reference for the party's role on the template. e.g. "Counterparty", "Customer", "Employer"
`party_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the party to update (use get-template-info to find it)
`entity_name`	No	Actual name of the party. Only for external (non account-linked) parties.
`template_uuid`	Yes	UUID of the template the party belongs to
`account_party_uuid`	No	UUID of a saved account party (from list-account-parties) to link this party to. Send null to unlink. While linked, only reference may be changed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uuid`	No	Identifier for the party - unique to the specific instance of the party. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`address`	No	The party's address. Absent when not yet known
`ref_uuid`	No	A static reference identifier, allowing parties in documents to be matched their corresponding party in the document's source template. Do not show to the user unless they ask for it
`reference`	No	A generic reference for the party. e.g. "Customer", "Employee", etc
`entity_name`	No	The actual name of the party. Absent when not yet known
`is_internal`	No	True if the party belongs to this account
`_entity_type`	No	Only relevant for tooling. Do not show to the user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds real value: partial-update semantics ('Only send the fields you want to change'), the mutual-exclusivity constraint while linked (only reference editable), and the unlink workflow via null account_party_uuid. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what exactly the write destroys, which would justify a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by scannable bulleted conditions and a labeled linkage section. Slightly verbose but every section earns its place; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the complex linked/unlinked state model and the discovery prerequisite tools. Complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond it by explaining the cross-field constraint between account_party_uuid and entity_name/address/scope, and clarifying that reference is the role label. This narrative linkage guidance is not fully derivable from the individual field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing party on a template') and clearly differentiates from siblings such as create-template-party, delete-template-party, and update-document-party. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use this tool when' bullets give conditions for the two main scenarios (editing role/entity/scope, and linking/unlinking an account party), and it names the alternatives get-template-info and list-account-parties for discovering the required UUIDs. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All fynk MCP 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?