SyncroMSP MCP Server

payments_update_profile

Modify an existing payment profile for a customer using customer ID and profile ID, with optional updates to expiration date and last four card digits.

Instructions

Update a payment profile

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "payments_update_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Profile ID
`last_four`	No
`expiration`	No
`customer_id`	Yes	Customer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the update is idempotent, what happens if the profile does not exist, or any side effects. This is a significant gap 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, achieving high efficiency. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices valuable detail, which prevents a perfect score.

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 lack of output schema and missing parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for safe and correct use. It does not specify return values, error conditions, or what aspects of the profile can be updated, leaving critical gaps for the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only customer_id and id have descriptions). The description does not explain the purpose of 'expiration' or 'last_four', nor does it add context beyond the schema. It should clarify what these fields represent in the context of updating a payment profile.

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 provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('a payment profile'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like payments_create_profile or payments_delete_profile, relying solely on the verb for differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., payments_create_profile for creation, or direct profile modification). The description lacks context such as prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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

Deploy Server