SyncroMSP MCP Server

estimates_update

Update an existing estimate by ID with optional fields for customer, name, number, date, note, status, ticket, or location.

Instructions

Update an existing estimate

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": "estimates_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Estimate ID (required)
`date`	No	Date
`name`	No	Estimate name
`note`	No	Note
`number`	No	Number
`status`	No	Status: Fresh, Draft, Approved, Declined
`ticket_id`	No	Ticket ID
`customer_id`	No	Customer ID
`location_id`	No	Location ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but does not specify partial update behavior, error handling (e.g., if ID not found), or required permissions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but lacks structure for a tool with 9 parameters. It could benefit from additional context while remaining focused.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain that only provided fields are updated or what the response looks like. This leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing estimate' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (estimate). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like estimates_create and estimates_delete, which have different actions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like estimates_add_line_item. It is implied that this is for updating estimate fields, but no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server