NexTool MCP for GLPI

Update change

glpi_update_change

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing change record in GLPI by ID to adjust fields like status, description, or priority, keeping ITIL data accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing change by ID.

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": {
      "changeId": "<changeId>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_update_change"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Fields to update
`changeId`	Yes	Item ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.2Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond this—it does not warn that the update may overwrite existing fields, mention permission requirements, or explain the effect of the generic 'input' payload.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient but under-specified rather than genuinely concise in the informative sense.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but this is a destructive mutation accepting a free-form object (additionalProperties: {}) with no indication of which fields are updatable or what the payload should contain. For a change-management write tool, the description is too thin to guide a correct call.

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% (both changeId and input are documented in the schema), so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. 'By ID' in the description merely echoes the schema and adds no format, ID-source, or field-level detail for the open-ended 'input' object.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing change') and identifies the target by ID, so it is clearly distinguishable from glpi_get_change, glpi_create_change, and glpi_list_changes. However, it never differentiates from the parallel update siblings (glpi_update_ticket, glpi_update_problem, glpi_update_user), which share the same verb pattern.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note that a change must already exist. The only implied usage comes from the name itself.

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

Deploy Server