Little Green Light MCP Server

update_fund

Idempotent

Update fund details in Little Green Light CRM, including name and description.

Instructions

Update fund details

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_fund"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not elaborate on side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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?

The description is very concise (4 words) but sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, yet lacks structure or elaboration on parameters and behavior. Conciseness here borders on under-specification.

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?

Given the absence of output schema, low schema description coverage, and the presence of many sibling tools, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this update differs from other fund operations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 3 parameters (id, name, description) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what each parameter means or how they should be used, leaving the agent to infer from names alone. This is insufficient for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 'Update fund details' clearly indicates the verb (update) and resource (fund details), making the purpose apparent. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_fund or get_fund, missing an opportunity to specify scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected state (e.g., fund must exist), or comparison to sibling CRUD operations.

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

Deploy Server