QuickBooks Online MCP Server

update_class

Modify an existing QuickBooks Online class by ID, including its name or active status, using the current sync token to keep updates consistent.

Instructions

Update an existing class 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_class"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutating write, not that sync_token enforces optimistic concurrency, not what happens on a stale token, and not which permissions are required. For a QuickBooks write operation with zero annotation coverage, one sentence adds no behavioral context at all.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — there is no front-loaded detail about required inputs, side effects, or return behavior.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested params object, which raises the bar for the description. It supplies none of the missing pieces — update semantics, concurrency failure behavior, or what is returned on success — leaving the agent to guess.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Top-level schema coverage is effectively 0% (only the nested id, name, active, and sync_token fields are described), and the description adds nothing about them. It also omits that additionalProperties is unconstrained, which permits arbitrary class fields, and does not explain the concurrency meaning of sync_token beyond the schema's own 'for concurrency' note.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing class'), which is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings such as create_class, get_class, or search_classes, or explain what 'update' covers (partial vs. full replacement).

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 tool versus get_class (inspect first) or create_class (when the class does not exist), and no prerequisites such as needing an existing id and current sync_token. Usage must be inferred 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