Pulse MCP Server

update_customer

Modify customer information in the Pulse billing platform by updating name, email, or other details for existing customers.

Instructions

Update an existing customer's details

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": {
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "customerId": "<customerId>"
    },
    "name": "update_customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`productId`	Yes	The product ID
`customerId`	Yes	The customer ID
`name`	No	Updated customer name
`email`	No	Updated customer email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Feb 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Update' implies mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('update,' 'existing customer,' 'details') earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'details' might include name and email, which the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('existing customer's details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_customer' or specify what 'details' encompasses beyond what's in the schema.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_customer' or 'list_customers'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., customer must exist) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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