mcp-server-smallinvoice

update_contact_account

Update a contact's bank account details such as IBAN, BIC, and account type to maintain accurate invoicing records.

Instructions

Updates specified account

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "contact_id": "<contact_id>",
      "account_id": "<account_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_contact_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`contact_id`	Yes	contact ID
`account_id`	Yes	account ID
`default`	No	whether it is a default contact's account
`type`	No	type (possible values: IBAN, ISR)
`number`	No	IBAN or ISR number (depends on the type)
`bic`	No	BIC number
`description`	No	internal description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose partial update behavior, allowed account types, or what happens on failure. The description fails to add value beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, side effects, or which fields are required. The annotations provide some behavioral hints, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of output schema and parameter complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with parameter-level descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Updates specified account' is vague and does not specify that it updates a contact's account. The tool name and input schema clarify this, but the description alone lacks specificity and does not distinguish from other update tools in the sibling list.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus create_contact_account or delete_contact_accounts, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for using it.

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

Deploy Server