mcp-server-smallinvoice

update_service_category

Update a service category's name and accounting account number by providing the category ID.

Instructions

Updates specified service category

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": {
      "category_id": "<category_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_service_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category_id`	Yes	category ID
`name`	No	Name
`accounting_account_number`	No	Accounting account number

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'updates', such as whether partial updates are supported, what happens to linked records, or required permissions. It relies entirely on the annotations for safety information.

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 with no extraneous words. However, it is somewhat under-specified; while efficient, it could include additional useful context without sacrificing brevity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple CRUD update tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It correctly identifies the action but lacks mention of partial updates or implicit behavior. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), but the tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints. For example, it does not explain that 'name' or 'accounting_account_number' are optional, nor does it clarify any format or business rules for these fields.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Updates') and the resource ('specified service category'), directly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_service_category, delete_service_categories, and get_service_category. No ambiguity.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_service_category for new categories, delete_service_categories for removal). No context on prerequisites or typical workflow is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server