Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BeeL MCP server

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_update_me

Destructive

Updates the authenticated person's language preference for the interface, invoice customisation, and received emails.

Instructions

Updates the preferences of the authenticated person. Today the only mutable preference is language.

It applies to the interface, to template names and colours in invoice customisation, and to the emails the person receives. It belongs to the person, not to a fiscal profile: the languages of invoices and of emails are separate settings of each company.

BeeL API endpoint: PATCH /v1/me (reference: https://docs.beel.es)

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "beel_update_me"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / type
      Added value: +"object"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / $defs / Language / description
      Previous value: -"Supported languages"New value: +"Supported languages: `es` Spanish, `en` English, `ca` Catalan.\n"
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / $defs / Language / example
      Removed value: -"es"
    • addedInput schema / $defs / UpdateMeRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  4. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false), the description discloses a real behavioral constraint: only `language` is mutable today, and the change has downstream effects on UI, template naming/colours, and outbound emails. It doesn't address permissions or whether the change is reversible, and does not explain the destructiveHint=true annotation, which is surprisingly strong for a preference update.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the mutable-field constraint, then supporting scope detail, then the API endpoint reference. The sentence about UI, template names/colours and emails is the longest but genuinely informative; there is little filler overall.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, its blast radius, and its scope boundary well. Missing pieces are minor: no mention of what a successful response looks like or of any permission requirement, but neither is essential to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, and the single parameter is a nested `body` object, so the description carries weight by declaring that `language` is the only mutable preference. It doesn't explain how the nested body maps or restate the enum values, but the schema itself carries the enum, so the description adds the key semantic constraint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates the preferences of the authenticated person') and immediately narrows scope to the only mutable field, `language`. The closing note that it is a person-level setting rather than a company fiscal-profile setting distinguishes it from the many company-level patch/mutation siblings in the list.

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 gives clear context for when this applies (interface, invoice-customisation template names/colours, emails received) and explicitly excludes fiscal-profile/company-language settings, which steers the agent away from a wrong sibling. It stops short of naming the sibling tool to use for company-level language instead.

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