clover-mcp

update_item_name

DestructiveIdempotent

Rename an inventory item while preserving price and other fields. Uses optimistic locking: refuses to update unless the current name matches the expected name.

Instructions

Modifies merchant data. Rename an inventory item (price/other fields preserved).

Optimistic lock: refuses unless the item's current name equals expected_current_name. Bounds: non-empty, <= 127 characters. dry_run=True previews the POST body (still performs one read) and never writes. Requires INVENTORY_R and INVENTORY_W.

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": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>",
      "expected_current_name": "<expected_current_name>"
    },
    "name": "update_item_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`dry_run`	No
`item_id`	Yes
`new_name`	Yes
`expected_current_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant detail beyond annotations: explains the optimistic lock mechanism, dry_run previews the POST body and never writes, and lists required permissions (INVENTORY_R and INVENTORY_W). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise with three focused sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, it covers most aspects well (lock, bounds, dry_run, permissions) and output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But the missing 'confirm' parameter leaves a small completeness gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains expected_current_name, new_name bounds, and dry_run behavior, and implies item_id. However, it does not mention the 'confirm' parameter, which is a notable gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'inventory item', with an explicit note that other fields are preserved. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_item_price_cents or set_item_stock_quantity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context including optimistic locking, bounds, dry_run behavior, and required permissions, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server