Update an existing installment plan by passing its plan ID and field changes through the Malipo API.
Update an existing installment plan. Use this to understand which fields are mutable via the Malipo API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | ||
| plan_id | Yes | The numeric ID of the plan to modify. | |
| updates | Yes | A map of fields to update (e.g., {'description': 'New description'}). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool updates an existing plan but does not disclose permissions, whether updates are partial or destructive, how unspecified fields behave, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the action. However, the second sentence is confusing and arguably misleading: it frames the tool as a way to understand mutable fields rather than to perform an update. The structure is compact but not fully purposeful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, a nested updates object, and one undocumented parameter. The description does not cover required permissions, mutation behavior, field mutability details, or return expectations, leaving the agent materially under-informed for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, with plan_id and updates described in the schema but address undocumented. The description adds no parameter-level detail; it does not list mutable fields, explain the updates map format beyond the schema example, or clarify the address parameter. It fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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 installment plan.' This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_installment_plan, create_installment, and delete_installment_plan. It lacks sibling-specific routing guidance, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. The sentence 'Use this to understand which fields are mutable via the Malipo API' is more of a vague rationale than a usage rule, and it does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.