OrgLines

Logistics: Update driver

logistics_update_driver

Destructive

Edit a driver profile — contacts, licence, documents, carrier, default vehicle, status (Free / OnTrip / DayOff) or rating. Send only what changes; the server merges onto the current profile. Requires confirmation. CONFIRMATION: this tool is PROPOSED, never performed directly. You get status='confirmation_required' with an action_id and a plan_token, and the write happens only after confirm_action.

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": {
      "driver_id": "<driver_id>"
    },
    "name": "logistics_update_driver"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`phone1`	No
`phone2`	No
`phone3`	No
`rating`	No
`status`	No	One of: Free, OnTrip, DayOff.
`user_id`	No
`driver_id`	Yes
`last_name`	No
`birth_date`	No
`carrier_id`	No
`first_name`	No
`patronymic`	No
`birth_place`	No
`passport_type`	No	One of: Booklet, IdCard. Booklet has a series; an ID-card has an expiry and a УНЗР record number.
`tax_id_number`	No
`driver_license`	No
`passport_number`	No
`passport_series`	No
`default_vehicle_id`	No
`license_categories`	No
`passport_authority`	No
`passport_issued_at`	No
`medical_certificate`	No
`passport_expires_at`	No
`registration_address`	No
`passport_record_number`	No
`driver_license_authority`	No
`driver_license_issued_at`	No
`driver_license_expires_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false and title; the description adds far more: merge-patch semantics, the exact two-step confirmation protocol, the returned status='confirmation_required', and the action_id/plan_token contract with confirm_action. That is precisely the external behavior an agent could not infer from the structured 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?

The first sentence front-loads the purpose and editable fields, then follows with the merge rule and the confirmation protocol. The brief redundancy between "Requires confirmation" and the CONFIRMATION block costs a little efficiency but aids emphasis rather than obscuring the content.

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 destructive, 29-parameter mutation the description covers the workflow-critical behavior (partial update, confirmation gate) very well. It is thin on the many document/licence parameters and does not address what 'destructive' means here or whether a merged update can be reverted, so an agent calling it for document fields is under-informed.

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 7% across 29 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It groups the editable fields (contacts, licence, documents, carrier, default vehicle, status, rating) and states that only driver_id plus changed fields are needed, but it leaves the bulk of passport/document/licence fields and their relationships (booklet vs ID-card fields) unexplained.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource — "Edit a driver profile" — and enumerates the editable surface (contacts, licence, documents, carrier, default vehicle, status, rating). The resource 'driver' cleanly separates it from siblings such as logistics_update_carrier and logistics_update_fleet_unit, and 'Edit' separates it from logistics_create_driver.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a clear operating rule — "Send only what changes; the server merges onto the current profile" — which prevents the common misuse of sending a full object. It also routes the agent to confirm_action for the actual write. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., creating a new driver vs editing an existing one), which keeps it off a 5.

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

All OrgLines 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?