Modify a service's price, status, quantity, expiration, or currency using its service ID to keep cloud hosting and billing records accurate.
Update properties or metadata of a service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| price | No | Updated price | |
| status | No | New status | |
| quantity | No | Updated quantity | |
| expires_at | No | New expiration timestamp | |
| service_id | Yes | Service ID | |
| currency_code | No | Updated currency code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose permission requirements, whether partial updates are supported, whether status changes are reversible, or how this interacts with dedicated suspend/cancel/renew tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though its terseness contributes to missing guidance rather than being a structural flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should explain partial-update behavior, status transition implications, and when to prefer dedicated service lifecycle tools over this generic updater.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the six parameters has a description, including an enum for status. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage the baseline is a 3; the explicit mention of 'properties or metadata' gives slight high-level context for what the parameters collectively change.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (a service), and clarifies it covers properties or metadata. However, it does not differentiate this general update from sibling tools like paymenter_suspend_service, paymenter_cancel_service, or paymenter_renew_service, which also modify service state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling mutation tools. With a 'status' parameter that can set suspended/cancelled, an agent could easily choose this generic updater instead of paymenter_suspend_service or paymenter_cancel_service.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.