Folk MCP by usefulapi

Update company

folk_update_company

Destructive

Update fields on an existing company. Only provided fields are changed; list-valued fields REPLACE the existing values. Folk REST: PATCH /v1/companies/{id}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The company id to update.
`name`	No	The company name.
`urls`	No	Replace the company's URLs.
`emails`	No	Replace the company's email addresses.
`groups`	No	Replace the company's groups (array of {id}).
`phones`	No	Replace the company's phone numbers.
`industry`	No	Industry.
`addresses`	No	Replace the company's addresses.
`description`	No	Freeform description / notes.
`employeeRange`	No	Employee-count range bucket.
`fundingRaised`	No	Total funding raised.
`foundationYear`	No	Year the company was founded.
`lastFundingDate`	No	Date of last funding round, formatted YYYY-MM-DD.
`customFieldValues`	No	Custom field values, keyed by field.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / properties / foundationYear / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / foundationYear / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```

removedInput schema / properties / fundingRaised / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]

addedInput schema / properties / fundingRaised / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```

First observedSep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed') and the destructive list-replacement rule ('list-valued fields REPLACE the existing values'), plus the underlying REST verb. It still omits permission/auth requirements and error behavior on an unknown id.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste: the update scope, the two mutation rules, and the endpoint. The most decision-relevant fact (partial update, list replacement) is front-loaded.

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?

For a 14-parameter PATCH tool with no output schema, the description covers the two semantics an agent would otherwise get wrong (partial update, list replacement). Missing only operational details such as auth needs and failure handling, which is minor given full schema coverage.

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 each parameter is already documented, including the per-field 'Replace the company's ...' notes. The description's generalization about list replacement is useful reinforcement but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on an existing company', which clearly separates it from folk_create_company and folk_get_company. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions; nothing tells the agent when to pick this over folk_update_person or when a create/merge would be more appropriate. Usage is only inferable from the name and the required 'id' parameter.

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

All Folk MCP by usefulapi tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Update company

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources