Paxaver MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_menu_item

Partially update an existing menu item by changing only the specified fields—name, description, price, cost, nutrition, ingredients, or availability. Use to modify menu details while preserving omitted values.

Instructions

ADMIN: Partially updates an existing menu item — only the provided fields change; omitted fields keep their current values. Use for renames, description edits, price/cost changes, nutrition updates, or toggling availability (is_available for out-of-stock, is_active to retire an item). Prefer set_menu_item_price for a price-only change and delete_menu_item to remove the item permanently. Requires pac_cordinator or lunch_cordinator role. WRITE operation — confirm changes with the user. Get restaurant_id from list_school_restaurants and menu_item_id from list_menu_items.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New display name for the item
`calories`	No	Calorie count
`is_active`	No	Whether the item stays on the restaurant menu — set false to retire it
`cost_cents`	No	Kitchen cost in cents (internal margin tracking)
`description`	No	New item description shown to parents
`ingredients`	No	Ingredient list text
`price_cents`	No	Sale price in cents (e.g. 550 = $5.50)
`is_available`	No	Whether the item can be ordered — set false while out of stock
`menu_item_id`	Yes	Menu item ID — from list_menu_items
`restaurant_id`	Yes	Restaurant ID — from list_school_restaurants

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`isActive`	No
`priceCents`	No
`isAvailable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.3Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: partial-update semantics, role restrictions, the need to confirm WRITE changes, and references to is_available vs is_active for different toggle purposes. It doesn't detail failure modes or revertibility, but the annotations already establish the non-destructive write profile.

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?

The description is dense but well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded and supporting guidance (alternatives, role, confirmation, ID sourcing) following in logical order. Every sentence contributes useful operational information, though the length is justified by the tool's 10-parameter complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the essential call context: what the operation does, when to choose alternatives, required roles, confirmation expectation, and how to obtain both required IDs. With a complete input schema and an output schema present, nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so core parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that omitted fields remain unchanged, clarifying the different purposes of is_available (out-of-stock) vs is_active (retire), and grouping parameters into use-case categories like price/cost and nutrition. This helps an agent infer which parameters to set for a given intent.

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 action ('partially updates an existing menu item') and scope ('only the provided fields change; omitted fields keep their current values'), and distinguishes it from related siblings like set_menu_item_price and delete_menu_item. This makes the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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?

The description explicitly lists use cases (renames, description edits, price/cost changes, nutrition updates, availability toggling) and names alternatives: 'Prefer set_menu_item_price for a price-only change and delete_menu_item to remove the item permanently.' It also provides role requirements, WRITE confirmation guidance, and ID sourcing instructions, leaving no ambiguity about when to use the tool.

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