Well

Update company

well_update_company

Destructive

Update an existing company in the current workspace.

Use this tool when the user asks to change, fix, rename, or edit a company's fields.

REQUIRED: company_id OPTIONAL (only include fields the user wants changed): name, description, domain, registered_name, trade_name, tax_id_value, tax_id_type, registry_country (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, e.g. "FR"), business_type, registered_value, registry_name, locale (ISO 639-1 two-letter language code, e.g. "en", "fr" — not "en_US").

CATEGORIES (a counterparty's industry): pass category_ids — the COMPLETE set of category ids the company should carry. It REPLACES the current set: ids you leave out are unlinked, and [] clears every category. Omit the field to leave the categories untouched. Read the catalog first with well_query_records({ root: "categories", whereClause: { category_type: { _eq: "company" } } }) and pass ids from it — an id that is not a category_type = "company" row is refused, and this tool never creates a category.

NOT CHANGEABLE via this tool: emails, phones, locations, linked people, media. Those require dedicated tools (not yet available).

Returns { success: true, company_id, name } on success — plus category_count, the number of categories the company carries afterwards, when the call passed category_ids. Returns { success: false, error } on failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Company name
`domain`	No	Primary website domain (e.g. acme.com)
`locale`	No	Preferred language as an ISO 639-1 two-letter code (e.g. en, fr, de). Pass null to clear.
`company_id`	Yes	The UUID of the company to update (required)
`trade_name`	No	Trading name / DBA
`description`	No	Brief company description; pass null to clear
`tax_id_type`	No	Tax identifier type (VAT, SIRET, EIN, ...)
`category_ids`	No	The COMPLETE set of company-category ids this company should carry. Replaces the current set; [] clears it; omit to leave categories unchanged.
`tax_id_value`	No	Tax identifier value (VAT, SIRET, EIN, ...)
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`business_type`	No	Business type / legal form
`registry_name`	No	Registry name
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
`registered_name`	No	Official registered legal name
`registered_value`	No	Registry identifier value
`registry_country`	No	ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code of the registry (e.g. FR, US)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`company_id`	No
`category_count`	No

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds concrete destructive semantics: category_ids REPLACES the current set, omitted ids are unlinked, '[]' clears, and invalid category ids are refused. It also discloses return values (including category_count), states the tool never creates categories, and lists non-editable fields — far beyond annotation basics.

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 description is long but organized into clear sections (REQUIRED, OPTIONAL, CATEGORIES, NOT CHANGEABLE, Returns) and front-loads the purpose. Some parameter details repeat schema descriptions, but the destructive complexity and category replacement rules justify the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a fully described input schema, an output schema, and the annotations, the description still adds prerequisites (category catalog read), category replacement semantics, non-changeable fields, and return variants. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds update-specific meaning ('only include fields the user wants changed'), clarifies the locale format ('not "en_US"'), and emphasizes the category replacement behavior — useful guidance beyond the schema. It does not duplicate every schema detail, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific action ('Update an existing company in the current workspace') and the intended user requests ('change, fix, rename, or edit a company's fields'). The 'existing' qualifier and the NOT CHANGEABLE list clearly separate it from create/delete and other update tools.

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?

Explicitly says when to use ('when the user asks to change, fix, rename, or edit a company's fields') and when not to use it for emails, phones, locations, linked people, and media, which 'require dedicated tools (not yet available)'. It also gives a prerequisite for category_ids. It does not name the sibling create/delete tools explicitly, but the scope language is enough for routing.

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

All Well 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: CRUD for companies, people, and invoices; financial analytics (cash, cost, runway, holdings); connector management and invocation; schema discovery; querying; reconciliation; and contact channel management. No two tools could be confused for the same action.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the `well_verb_noun` pattern with consistent verb choices (create, get, list, update, delete, add, remove, run, resolve, query, invoke). The naming is predictable and makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

Tool Count4/5

With 26 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but every tool earns its place given the breadth of the domain (CRM, invoicing, financial analytics, reconciliation, connector management). The count is well-scoped and not excessive.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core CRUD, financial KPIs, reconciliation, and connector management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool to update contact channels or manage accounts), but the query and schema tools allow agents to work around them, and the primary workflows are fully supported.

Resources

Need Help?