nc-mcp-server

update_cospend_project

Idempotent

Update Cospend project settings: name, currency, auto-export, sorting, deletion guard, or archive. Pass only fields you want to change; requires admin.

Instructions

Update a Cospend project's settings. Requires ADMIN access.

Pass only the fields you want to change; omit the rest.

Args: project_id: String project id. name: New display name. auto_export: Periodic CSV auto-export frequency. Same code set as bill repeat: "n"=none (default), "d"=daily, "w"=weekly, "b"=biweekly, "s"=semi-monthly, "m"=monthly, "y"=yearly. currency_name: Main currency name (free-form string, e.g. "EUR"). Pass empty string to clear. deletion_disabled: When set, delete_cospend_bill returns HTTP 403 ("project deletion is disabled"). delete_cospend_project is NOT gated by this flag and still succeeds. Useful as a guard against accidental bill removal in shared projects. category_sort: Default category ordering. "a"=alphabetical (default), "m"=manual (custom order field), "u"=most used, "r"=recently used. payment_mode_sort: Same options as category_sort, for payment modes. archived_ts: Archive control with three special values. - 0 → archive now (server records the current Unix timestamp). - -1 → unarchive (clears the field). - any other int → archive at that exact Unix timestamp. Note: 0 ARCHIVES the project (it does not unarchive).

Returns: JSON {"project_id": ..., "updated": true} — the OCS endpoint returns no body, so this is a synthetic confirmation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`archived_ts`	No
`auto_export`	No
`category_sort`	No
`currency_name`	No
`deletion_disabled`	No
`payment_mode_sort`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover read/write and idempotency, but the description adds valuable behavior: ADMIN requirement, partial-update semantics, the nuanced deletion_disabled flag and its effect on sibling tools, and the special archived_ts values including the warning that 0 archives rather than unarchives. It also discloses the synthetic confirmation response, which is beyond the structured annotations.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, permission, partial-update instruction, parameter details, and return value. The structure is front-loaded with the key facts and uses consistent formatting for the argument list.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is fully self-contained: it covers the purpose, required permission, parameter semantics, special behaviors, and the response format. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. Every parameter is explained with value sets, defaults, and special cases—notably archived_ts with its 0/-1/timestamp semantics and deletion_disabled's exact effect.

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: 'Update a Cospend project's settings.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_cospend_project, delete_cospend_project, and update_cospend_bill. The subsequent parameter list further reinforces the tool's scope.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it requires ADMIN access and supports partial updates by passing only the fields to change. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

Deploy Server