MCP Platform Service

update_entity

Update an existing entity by providing its ID, type, and fields to modify. Supports user, project, task, and document types.

Instructions

Update an existing entity in the external platform

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": {
      "entityId": "<entityId>",
      "entityType": "<entityType>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "update_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	The fields to update
`entityId`	Yes	The unique identifier of the entity to update
`entityType`	Yes	The type of entity

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should explain behavioral traits (e.g., partial vs full update, error behavior, permissions). It only says 'Update an existing entity', leaving the agent guessing about important details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely short but under-specified. While one sentence is concise, it lacks critical information, making it inadequate rather than efficiently informative.

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?

No output schema and no annotation support. The description fails to cover return values, error handling, or side effects, leaving major gaps for a mutation tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, so parameters are documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for a 3.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('existing entity'), making it unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_entity or delete_entity, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to update vs delete and recreate, or any prerequisites like authentication state.

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

Deploy Server