Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-smallinvoice

mcp-server-smallinvoice

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_cost_unit

Update an existing cost unit's details, such as its number, name, description, or type.

Instructions

Updates specified cost unit

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": {
      "cost_unit_id": "<cost_unit_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_cost_unit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cost_unit_idYescost unit ID
numberNocost unit's internal number
nameNocost unit's name
descriptionNocost unit's description
typeNocost unit's type; one of: ['P','U']

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'updates', which is minimal. Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., partial vs full update, side effects) are disclosed. The description adds little 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks important context like update behavior (overwrite vs merge), return values, error handling, or prerequisites. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description 'Updates specified cost unit' clearly states the action (updates) and the resource (cost unit), making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_cost_unit' or 'delete_cost_units', lacking differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools