QuickBooks Online MCP Server

update_attachable

Update an existing QuickBooks Online attachable's metadata such as file name, note, category, or content type. Use it for metadata corrections only; to replace file bytes, create a new attachable and delete the old one.

Instructions

Update an existing attachable's metadata (file name, note, category, content type) in QuickBooks Online. This is metadata-only: it CANNOT replace the uploaded file bytes. To attach a different or corrected file, create a new attachable (create_attachable with file_path) and delete the old one.

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_attachable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load and does disclose the single most important behavioral constraint: the operation cannot touch file bytes, only metadata, and a corrected file requires a create-then-delete sequence. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether the update is reversible, or what happens on a stale sync_token conflict, which for a mutation tool without annotations would be valuable additions.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, the hard limitation, and the remediation path. The constraint is front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover mutation semantics, and it does address the highest-risk misconception (that it could replace the file). Remaining gaps are concurrency handling for the required sync_token and permissions, which matter for a sync-token-gated write but are secondary to the limitation already covered.

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?

The listed fields (file name, note, category, content type) map onto schema properties that already carry their own per-property descriptions, and the file_path caveat repeated in the description is already spelled out in the schema. The description's real added value, that these fields are metadata rather than file content, is a conceptual clarification rather than parameter-level guidance such as which combinations are valid or how sync_token should be sourced.

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

Purpose5/5

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 attachable's metadata') and enumerates the affected fields (file name, note, category, content type) within the QuickBooks Online domain. It is clearly separable from create_attachable, get_attachable, and delete_attachable, all of which appear in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when this tool applies (metadata-only edits) and when it does not (replacing uploaded file bytes), then routes the agent to a concrete alternative workflow: create_attachable with file_path followed by deletion of the old record. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure a strong definition should have.

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

Deploy Server