amendor-mcp

Update status

update_status

Idempotent

Update the status of a change request as it advances through new, accepted, building, preview, approved, shipped, or rejected stages.

Instructions

Update a change request status as it moves through the build and review flow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Change request id.
`status`	Yes	New status: new, accepted, building, preview, approved, shipped, or rejected.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Change request id.
`status`	Yes	The status now set on the request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.4Jun 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id / description
```
Added value: +"Change request id."
```

addedInput schema / properties / status / description

Added value: +"New status: new, accepted, building, preview, approved, shipped, or rejected."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Change request id.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "The status now set on the request.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "status"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the build and review flow but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and context.

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?

Given output schema existence and simple parameters, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. Could mention the status progression order but not required.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'update status'.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'change request status' with context 'as it moves through the build and review flow'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_change_request (read) and set_preview_url (URL-specific).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for moving status along a flow, but does not explicitly state when to use or provide alternatives. No exclusions or when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server