erp2pdf-studio-mcp

by c4pointer

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

update_part

Update a part's name, description, or layout so all templates using that part reflect the changes.

Instructions

Update a part's name, description and/or layout. Every template that uses the part changes with it.

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": {
      "part_id": "<part_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_part"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`layout`	No
`part_id`	Yes
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: 'Every template that uses the part changes with it' — a real blast-radius warning. It omits other key behaviors: whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged, required permissions, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the scope statement comes first and the consequential side effect is front-loaded rather than buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description supplies the critical cascade warning but leaves the agent guessing about partial-update semantics and return value. It is usable but under-specified for a write operation of this scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only echoes the parameter names ('name, description and/or layout'). It adds no meaning for the opaque `layout` object, no explanation that null means 'leave as-is', and never mentions the required `part_id`.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('part') plus the exact mutable fields (name, description, layout), which clearly separates it from create_part/delete_part/list_parts siblings. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_part or delete_part, no prerequisites, and no statement about whether it can be used to rename a part that appears in live templates. The cascade sentence hints at caution but does not give a usage rule.

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