Handled Locator

Update a location

update_location

DestructiveIdempotent

Change one or more fields on an existing location. Only the fields you send are touched. Changing the address re-geocodes it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Location id.
`lat`	No	Latitude. Supplying lat and lng skips geocoding.
`lng`	No	Longitude.
`city`	No
`name`	No	Business or store name.
`email`	No
`hours`	No	Opening hours keyed by ISO weekday, 1 = Monday. Each value is a list of {open, close} in 24h HH:MM, or null for closed.
`phone`	No
`state`	No
`address`	No	Full address as a person would write it. Geocoded automatically unless lat and lng are supplied.
`website`	No
`imageUrl`	No
`priority`	No	Higher sorts first when there is no visitor position.
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone, for example America/Chicago.
`postalCode`	No
`visibility`	No	hidden keeps the location in the account but off the public locator.
`countryCode`	No	Two-letter ISO country code.
`description`	No
`markerColor`	No	Hex colour for this location's map marker.
`addressLine1`	No	Street line, when the address is structured.
`customFields`	No	Extra fields, keyed by the label shown to visitors. The value is either a plain string, or an object {value, color, icon, style} where `value` is the URL or text. There is no `label` or `url` key: the label is the key, and the URL goes in `value`. Example: {"Book a table": {"value": "https://example.com/book", "color": "#C2540E"}}. Never use this for tags or categories; use the categories field instead.
`locationType`	No	point is a physical address, service_area covers a radius, online is a stockist with no address.
`serviceRadiusKm`	No	Radius in km, for a service_area location.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds useful behavioral context: 'Only the fields you send are touched' and 'Changing the address re-geocodes it'. This reveals partial-update semantics and a side-effect beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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?

Two concise sentences that lead with the action, then cover the partial-update and re-geocoding side-effect. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

For a complex mutation tool with 23 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior but omits guidance on returning values, error conditions, or relationships among parameters (e.g., address/lat-lng). It does not mention set_custom_field as a more targeted option for custom fields.

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 coverage is 65%, and the description adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already includes. It re-uses the address/re-geocoding behavior that appears in the schema and does not explain fields like postalCode, markerColor, or description, so it does not compensate for all undocumented parameters.

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 ('Change') and names the resource ('an existing location'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes the operation from create_location and delete_location without requiring schema inspection.

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 implies usage: update an existing location and only provide fields to change. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as set_custom_field for custom-field-specific updates or create_location for new records.

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

All Handled Locator 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.

Resources

Need Help?