partial_update_resumeentriesPartial update (PATCH) of a resume entry — send only the fields to change (e.g. note or date range). Requires the company_id path parameter and the entry id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that this is a PATCH (partial update) that only modifies specified fields, which is behavior beyond the annotations. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior, but the partial-update semantics are clearly disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-organized sentence that leads with the action (Partial update/PATCH), explains the key behavior, and lists required parameters. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core semantics: what it does, the partial nature, and required inputs. It does not explain the domain concept of 'resume entry' or error cases, but these are likely understood from the broader API context. It is reasonably complete for a partial-update operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (company_id and pk), so schema coverage is effectively 100% despite the context signal. The description reiterates that company_id and the entry id are required but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The 'send only the fields to change' hints at optional fields but does not enumerate them, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs a partial update (PATCH) of a resume entry, with explicit mention of sending only changed fields. It distinguishes from full updates by using the term 'partial' and gives an example (note or date range), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools like update_resumeentries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you want to change only a subset of fields, as opposed to a full update. It states the required parameters (company_id and entry id) but does not explicitly name the alternative tool (update_resumeentries) or provide explicit 'when not to use'. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.