update_client
Mettre à jour un client
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body | |
| client_id | Yes | (path parameter) |
Mettre à jour un client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body | |
| client_id | Yes | (path parameter) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / body / properties / address_line1Added value: +{
+ "maxLength": 255,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / address_line2Added value: +{
+ "maxLength": 255,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / cityAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 120,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / countryAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 80,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / postal_codeAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 20,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / sirenAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 11,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / siretAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 17,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Input schema / properties / body / properties / vat_numberAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 32,
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.