QuickBooks Online MCP Server

update_term

Modify an existing QuickBooks Online payment term by adjusting due days, discount percentage, active status, or name using its ID and sync token.

Instructions

Update an existing payment term 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_term"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 delivers almost nothing. It does not say whether this is a partial or full-replace update (are omitted fields cleared?), that a stale sync_token will fail, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed for a financial configuration object.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the efficiency comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 7-field object, the description omits everything an agent needs beyond field names: partial vs full update semantics, sync_token conflict behavior, and whether the updated term is returned. Only the target entity and system are established.

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 description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. Mitigating this, the nested schema does annotate all seven inner fields (id, name, active, due_days, discount_days, discount_percent, sync_token including its concurrency role), but the top-level 'params' wrapper itself is undocumented at the reported 0% coverage, so the description should have closed that gap and did not.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing payment term') and names the domain (QuickBooks Online). The sibling set makes the create/get/search/update/delete family obvious by name alone, so differentiation is largely handled by naming, not by the description itself.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus create_term, get_term, or search_terms, and no precondition guidance such as 'fetch the current term first to obtain id and sync_token'. The agent must infer all workflow routing.

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

Deploy Server