printful-mcp-server

updateSyncVariant

Update the retail price or file placements of a sync variant by providing its ID.

Instructions

Update a sync variant (price, files, etc)

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": {
      "sync_variant_id": "<sync_variant_id>"
    },
    "name": "updateSyncVariant"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`files`	No	New file placements
`retail_price`	No	New retail price
`sync_variant_id`	Yes	Sync variant ID to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without explaining permissions, idempotency, partial-update behavior, side effects on related entities, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It avoids verbosity, though 'etc' is slightly lazy and could be more precise without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, all schema-documented) and sibling context, the description is minimally viable. However, the absence of annotations and any note about return values or side effects leaves the mutation behavior underspecified. Adequate but not complete.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description's mention of 'price, files' merely repeats parameter names and adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('a sync variant'), with examples of fields ('price, files'). It distinguishes from sibling read/delete tools like getSyncVariant and deleteSyncVariant. However, the 'etc' is vague and doesn't enumerate all possible fields.

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 createSyncProduct or updateSyncProduct. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the basic 'Update' action.

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