Skip to main content
Glama
cmendezs

mcp-facture-electronique-fr

by cmendezs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

update_routing_code

Update specific fields of an existing routing code by its instance ID, such as its label, status, or type code, while leaving other details unchanged.

Instructions

Partially update a routing code (PATCH /code-routage/id-instance:{id-instance}). Only provided fields are modified.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
id_instanceYesDirectory instance ID (idInstance) of the routing code.
etat_administratifNoNew status. Omit to leave unchanged.
libelle_code_routageNoNew label. Omit to leave unchanged.
type_identifiant_routageNoNew 4-digit type code. Omit to leave unchanged.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / etat_administratif
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "enum": [
+        "A",
+        "F"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "New status. Omit to leave unchanged."
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / id_instance
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Directory instance ID (idInstance) of the routing code.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / instance_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Instance identifier of the routing code to update. Obtained from create_routing_code or search_routing_code response. Required — there is no lookup by routing_code value directly.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / label
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "New descriptive label for the routing code. Omit to leave the current label unchanged."
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / libelle_code_routage
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "New label. Omit to leave unchanged."
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / routing_code
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "New routing code value (replaces the existing one). Must be unique for the associated SIRET. Omit to leave the current value unchanged."
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / type_identifiant_routage
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "New 4-digit type code. Omit to leave unchanged."
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "instance_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id_instance"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / instance_id / description
      Previous value: -"Instance identifier of the routing code to update (returned by create_routing_code or search_routing_code)."New value: +"Instance identifier of the routing code to update. Obtained from create_routing_code or search_routing_code response. Required — there is no lookup by routing_code value directly."
    • changedInput schema / properties / label / description
      Previous value: -"New descriptive label."New value: +"New descriptive label for the routing code. Omit to leave the current label unchanged."
    • changedInput schema / properties / routing_code / description
      Previous value: -"New routing code value."New value: +"New routing code value (replaces the existing one). Must be unique for the associated SIRET. Omit to leave the current value unchanged."
  3. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are modified') but omits details like authorization, side effects, error handling, or HTTP method (though implied by PATCH in endpoint). Adequate but could be richer.

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 sentences, no redundancy. First sentence provides endpoint and method, second sentence clarifies behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers the core behavioral trait (partial update). However, lacks prerequisites (e.g., routing code must exist) or potential error conditions. Moderate completeness for a simple update.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'Omit to leave unchanged' already in schema. No new insights about parameter formats or constraints.

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 clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'routing code', and specifies it is a partial update (PATCH). It distinguishes from sibling 'replace_routing_code' which would be a full replacement.

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?

Implicitly clarifies when to use (partial update) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like 'replace_routing_code'. Sibling context helps but description lacks direct guidance.

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