starshipit-mcp

Update Address Book Entry

starshipit_update_address

Idempotent

Update a saved address book entry by ID to correct contact details, delivery instructions, or shipping preferences. Provide the full replacement address after finding the ID with the address list tool.

Instructions

Update an existing address book entry by its ID.

When to use: Call this when a saved address needs to be corrected or updated — e.g. a contact has moved, changed phone number, or you need to add delivery instructions. Use starshipit_list_addresses first to find the correct id.

Parameters:

id (required) — the address book entry ID to update (retrieve via starshipit_list_addresses)
address (required) — updated address fields; you should provide all fields, not just the changed ones, as the API replaces the entire entry

Required fields inside address:

name, street, post_code, country

Optional fields inside address:

code, company, suburb, city, state
phone, email, instructions, building
carrier, signature_required

Returns: The updated address object.

Errors:

400 — validation failure on the address fields
404 — no address with the given id was found
401/403 — authentication failure

Example:

{
  "id": 6926658,
  "address": {
    "name": "Warehouse Manager",
    "company": "Acme Logistics",
    "street": "55 Bourke St",
    "suburb": "Melbourne",
    "state": "VIC",
    "post_code": "3000",
    "country": "Australia",
    "phone": "0398765432",
    "signature_required": true
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Address book entry ID to update (from starshipit_list_addresses)
`address`	Yes	Replacement address data

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`errors`	No	Validation or processing errors returned by StarShipIt
`object`	No	The response payload when StarShipIt returns a non-object value
`success`	No	StarShipIt success flag (a boolean on most endpoints)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description goes further with the critical replace-not-merge semantics ('provide all fields, not just the changed ones, as the API replaces the entire entry') plus a full error map for 400/404/401/403. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot express.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose, then when-to-use, params, returns, errors, example — scannable and sectioned. The required/optional field enumeration largely repeats the schema, which is the only redundancy; the rest of the length is justified by the replacement warning and example.

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?

Covers purpose, routing prerequisite, replacement semantics, error conditions and a worked payload example for a 2-parameter nested-object mutation tool. With an output schema present, the brief 'Returns' line is sufficient and no agent-critical information is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by disclosing that the nested 'address' object is a full replacement (destructive-of-omitted-fields), which the schema does not convey. It loses a bit for re-listing required/optional fields the schema already documents.

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 an existing address book entry by its ID') and its sibling set makes the boundary obvious — it is not starshipit_add_address or starshipit_delete_addresses. No ambiguity about what is being mutated.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use' block with concrete triggers (contact moved, phone changed, add delivery instructions) plus a prerequisite step: call starshipit_list_addresses first to obtain the id. That is the when-and-how an agent needs, not just implied context.

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

Deploy Server