NexTool MCP for GLPI

Update entity

glpi_update_entity

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing GLPI entity by ID, modifying specified fields to keep organizational records accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing entity 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": {
      "entityId": "<entityId>",
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "glpi_update_entity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	Fields to update
`entityId`	Yes	Entity 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 disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – it doesn't say what a destructive update affects, which fields are mutable, or what permissions are needed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.

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 no explanation. However, for a destructive mutation tool with a nested free-form input object, the description omits what fields can be updated and what the change impacts, leaving it too thin given the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the entityId parameter ('by ID') and says nothing about the generic 'input' object, whose additionalProperties={} leaves the updatable field set undefined in both schema and description.

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 (update) and resource (entity) plus the identifier used to select it ('by ID'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like glpi_create_entity or glpi_delete_entity, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required rights on the entity), and no mention of alternatives such as glpi_get_entity for reading or glpi_delete_entity for removal. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server