FavCRM

This connector has been deprecated

This connector has been replaced by https://glama.ai/mcp/connectors/io.favcrm/favcrm/admin

update_service

Idempotent

Update an existing booking service. Pass only the fields you want to change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Name
`price`	No	Decimal string, e.g. "80.00"
`status`	No	Status filter
`capacity`	No	Participants per slot
`serviceId`	Yes	Service ID to update
`categoryId`	No	Category ID
`visibility`	No	Visibility: public \| members_only \| hidden
`description`	No	Description
`requireLogin`	No	If true, guests cannot book without an account
`requiresStaff`	No	Whether the service requires staff assignment
`commissionType`	No	Commission type: "fixed" or "percentage"
`commissionValue`	No	Commission amount as decimal string
`cooldownMinutes`	No	Cooldown minutes between bookings
`durationMinutes`	No	Duration of one booking in minutes
`requiresResource`	No	Whether the service requires a resource (room/equipment)
`commissionCurrency`	No	Commission currency (ISO code)
`requiresConfirmation`	No	If true, bookings start pending and need explicit confirmation

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Tool result payload — shape varies per tool, see the tool description
`summary`	Yes	One-line human-readable summary of the action
`renderType`	Yes	UI rendering hint for the result

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the partial update behavior ('pass only the fields you want to change'), which is consistent and provides slight extra transparency beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and usage pattern. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

Given the high parameter count (17) and full schema coverage plus an output schema, the description is complete enough for an update operation. It could hint at the required serviceId, but that is in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description's advice to 'pass only the fields you want to change' is general and adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's per-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?

The description 'Update an existing booking service' uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('service'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_service, get_service_detail, and delete_service.

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?

The instruction 'Pass only the fields you want to change' gives clear usage guidance for partial updates, implying that other fields will remain unchanged. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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

All FavCRM 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.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions that minimize ambiguity. Even related tools like create_post vs create_post_type are well-separated by their targets.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_account, list_services, update_post), with no mixing of naming conventions. The pattern is predictable throughout the set.

Tool Count1/5

190 tools is excessively large for any server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 tool range. The sheer volume overwhelms agents and suggests poor scoping, even for a comprehensive CRM platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers CRUD operations across many domains (CRM, bookings, marketing, CMS, etc.), but notable gaps exist (e.g., no delete_account, delete_contact, update_booking). These are minor given the vast surface.

Resources

Need Help?