Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_ap_bill

Update an accounts payable bill in Rocketmatter by providing bill ID and new field values.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Update an AP bill. Fails loudly.

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": {
      "bill_id": "<bill_id>",
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "update_ap_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bill_idYes
fields_jsonYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Notes 'Fails loudly,' which indicates error behavior. However, with no annotations, description should cover safety profile (e.g., idempotency, permissions) which it does not. Partial credit for disclosing a behavioral trait.

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?

Very short two-sentence structure is concise but omits critical information. Could be expanded with parameter guidance while maintaining 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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), description lacks details on input format, return value, and any constraints. A mutation tool with two parameters and no annotations needs more context.

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 coverage is 0% and description provides no parameter details. 'fields_json' is ambiguous and could be misinterpreted without explanation of expected format or allowed fields.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an AP bill' with a specific verb and resource. The prefix '[Not in LCS /v1]' slightly detracts but doesn't obscure purpose. Distinguishes from create/delete/get siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_invoice or update_transaction. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools