QuickBooks Online MCP Server

update-vendor

Updates an existing QuickBooks Online vendor's name, contact, email, phone, and billing address using the vendor ID and sync token.

Instructions

Update a vendor in QuickBooks Online.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "update-vendor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It never mentions that SyncToken implies optimistic concurrency/version checking, whether the update is sparse or full-replacement (so unspecified fields may be overwritten or preserved), or what permissions/errors to expect from a QuickBooks mutation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally fine. The brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, since nothing operationally useful survives the trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with a nested schema, zero parameter documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no information about the read-modify-write requirement, update semantics, or response shape before calling it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% on a single deeply nested object parameter with required Id, SyncToken, and DisplayName. The description does not explain any field, which fields are updatable, or why SyncToken is required, so it compensates for none of the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Update a vendor") plus the system (QuickBooks Online), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it adds nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling mutation tools (create-vendor, delete-vendor, update_vendor_credit) beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of create-vendor, get-vendor, or update_vendor_credit, and no prerequisites are stated. An agent must infer that a vendor must already exist and that it should read the vendor first to obtain Id and SyncToken.

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

Deploy Server