BeeL MCP server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

beel_patch_customer

Patch a customer by updating only the fields you include, leaving all other data untouched. Send null to clear nullable fields while keeping the rest intact.

Instructions

Updates only the fields present in the body, leaving every other field of the customer as it is.

Null vs omitted: a field sent as null is cleared, which is different from omitting it (see PatchCustomerRequest).
Only update verb: this is the canonical way to edit a customer. There is no PUT of full replacement under the company, which would clear the fields you omit.

Endpoint: PATCH /v1/companies/{company_id}/customers/{customer_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`company_id`	Yes	Unique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed.
`customer_id`	Yes	Customer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed25 schema fields changedv0.5.0Aug 30, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs / Address / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / city / example
```
Removed value: -"Madrid"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / country / example
```
Removed value: -"España"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / country_code / example
```
Removed value: -"ES"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / door / example
```
Removed value: -"A"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / floor / example
```
Removed value: -"2º A"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / number / example
```
Removed value: -"123"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / postal_code / example
```
Removed value: -"28001"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / province / example
```
Removed value: -"Madrid"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Address / properties / street / example
```
Removed value: -"Calle Mayor, 123"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Email / example
```
Removed value: -"user@example.com"
```

removedInput schema / $defs / IBAN / example

Removed value: -"ES1234567890123456789012"

removedInput schema / $defs / NIF / example
```
Removed value: -"12345678A"
```
addedInput schema / $defs / PatchCustomerRequest / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchCustomerRequest / properties / phone / allOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/Phone"
-  }
-]
```

addedInput schema / $defs / PatchCustomerRequest / properties / phone / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "allOf": [
+      {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/Phone"
+      }
+    ],
+    "description": "Phone number. Send `null` to clear it."
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / $defs / PatchCustomerRequest / properties / phone / description
```
Removed value: -"Phone number. Send `null` to clear it."
```
addedInput schema / $defs / PaymentInfo / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PaymentInfo / properties / payment_term_days / example
```
Removed value: -30
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PaymentMethod / example
```
Removed value: -"BANK_TRANSFER"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / Phone / example
```
Removed value: -"+34 612 345 678"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / SWIFT / example
```
Removed value: -"ABCDESMMXXX"
```

removedInput schema / $defs / UUID / example

Removed value: -"550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description

Previous value: -"NIF (company) the operation acts on. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A NIF you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a NIF that does not exist, so the existence of a NIF in another account is never disclosed."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed."

First observedv0.3.1Aug 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses meaningful patch behavior: only supplied fields are touched, null clears a field while omission keeps it, and the absence of a PUT endpoint. It does not cover idempotency or error behavior, but the annotations already signal a non-readonly mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and efficient: a leading sentence states the core behavior, followed by two targeted bullet points and the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a PATCH tool, the description resolves the most likely confusion (partial update semantics, null handling, no PUT) and the schema supplies detailed field constraints. The main gap is the lack of any statement about the response payload, though no output schema exists to cover it.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate for parameter-level semantics, but it does clarify the critical null-vs-omitted distinction and directs readers to PatchCustomerRequest. Individual parameter details are left to the already-rich schema, so the description adds only marginal parameter value.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Updates'), the resource ('customer'), and the precise semantic ('only the fields present in the body'). It also distinguishes itself as 'the canonical way to edit a customer' and explicitly notes there is no full-replacement PUT, preventing confusion with full-update alternatives.

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?

The description explicitly guides when to use this tool: it is the canonical edit path for customers, and it warns that no PUT exists that would clear omitted fields. It does not enumerate all alternatives like create/delete, but those are semantically obvious from sibling names.

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

Deploy Server

beel_patch_customer

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools