update_client
Mettre à jour un client
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body | |
| client_id | Yes | (path parameter) |
eyeot ERP
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (no hints). The description adds no behavioral context, such as whether updates are partial, idempotent, or require specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), but it is too minimal and does not add value. It is concise but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (many fields) and absence of output schema, the description should mention return behavior or confirmation. It does not, leaving the agent uninformed about the update result.
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 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. However, it provides no additional semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Mettre à jour un client' is a tautology, restating the tool name without adding clarity. It does not differentiate this tool from siblings like create_client or get_client.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_client or get_client. No context on prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (e.g., create_client vs. list_clients). However, generic tools like eyeot_call overlap with many specific tools, and there's potential confusion between convert_opportunity_to_quote, create_quote, and accept_quote, though descriptions help distinguish them.
Naming Consistency3/5
The majority follow verb_noun pattern (create_client, list_invoices), but there are outliers like eyeot_call, eyeot_help, stock_dashboard, dashboard_kpis, whoami, and search. The mix of French and English is consistent but slight inconsistency in structure.
Tool Count4/5
33 tools cover multiple ERP modules (CRM, HR, inventory, sales, IT). While on the higher end, each module has necessary operations. The presence of generic eyeot_call suggests the tool surface could be larger, but the count is still reasonable for the scope.
Completeness2/5
Only clients have update and no deletes exist. Many resources (products, employees, orders, quotes, invoices, opportunities, tickets) lack update/delete operations. This creates dead ends for agents that need to modify or remove data.