Skip to main content
Glama
daanno

Simplicate MCP Server

by daanno

update_project

Modify existing project details by providing the project ID and updated field data to maintain current project information in Simplicate business systems.

Instructions

Update an existing project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesFields to update
project_idYesProject ID

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool call handler: validates project_id and data, calls SimplicateService.updateProject, serializes response as JSON text content.
    case 'update_project': {
      if (!toolArgs.project_id || !toolArgs.data) throw new Error('project_id and data are required');
      const data = await this.simplicateService.updateProject(toolArgs.project_id, toolArgs.data);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
  • Input schema definition for update_project tool, specifying required project_id and data object.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        project_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Project ID' },
        data: { type: 'object', description: 'Fields to update' },
      },
      required: ['project_id', 'data'],
    },
  • Tool registration in listTools response: defines name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'update_project',
      description: 'Update an existing project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Project ID' },
          data: { type: 'object', description: 'Fields to update' },
        },
        required: ['project_id', 'data'],
      },
    },
  • Core service method implementation: performs HTTP PUT to Simplicate API endpoint /projects/project/{projectId} to update project data.
    async updateProject(projectId: string, data: Partial<SimplicateProject>): Promise<SimplicateProject> {
      const response = await this.client.put(`/projects/project/${projectId}`, data);
      return response.data;
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the update entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), potential side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more completeness is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'data'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'data' contains update fields, which is already clear from the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project' (creation vs. update) and 'delete_project' (deletion vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_hours' or 'update_invoice'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID), exclusions (e.g., what fields can't be updated), or comparisons to other update tools (e.g., 'update_hours' for time-related updates). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daanno/simplicate-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server