Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agenthouse-org

dealdesk-mcp

by agenthouse-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

dealdesk.patch_company

Update a company record using optimistic concurrency: supply the expected revision to prevent overwriting concurrent changes.

Instructions

Update a company. Requires expectedRevision from get_company for optimistic concurrency.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taxIdNo
fieldsNo
localeNo
companyIdYes
legalNameNo
projectIdNoDealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects.
displayNameNo
emailDomainsNo
registrationIdNo
expectedRevisionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"DealDesk project id (must match API key / OAuth project)"New value: +"DealDesk project id. Omit when the OAuth token or API key authorizes exactly one project. Required when Connect authorized several projects."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "companyId",
-  "expectedRevision"
-]New value: +[
+  "companyId",
+  "expectedRevision"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 usefully discloses an optimistic concurrency requirement, but does not explain permissions, what happens on revision mismatch, whether updates are partial or full, or what side effects occur. For a 10-parameter mutation, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words, and it front-loads the primary action before the prerequisite. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves little structure for the parameters it omits.

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?

The tool is a complex mutation with 10 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only covers the concurrency prerequisite, doing little to fill the large gaps in schema coverage or explain mutation behavior. It is not adequate for correct invocation without further investigation.

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 only 10%, so the description must compensate. It explains the origin of expectedRevision, which is useful, but leaves companyId and the other eight parameters undocumented, including the open-ended 'fields' object. Most parameter meaning is absent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a company.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_company, list_companies, and create_company by verb. It does not clarify whether this is a partial patch or full replacement, but the core purpose is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives a concrete prerequisite and workflow: 'Requires expectedRevision from get_company for optimistic concurrency.' This tells the agent to call get_company first. There are no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool conditions, but the key context is present.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools