JobNimbus MCP Server

by drummouse

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

jn_update_job

Update a JobNimbus job's name, status, address, and custom fields such as Lead Number and GPS.

Instructions

Update a job in JobNimbus. Use custom_fields_json for Lead Number, Job Number, GPS, Plus Code from GHL.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "jnid": "<jnid>"
    },
    "name": "jn_update_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No
`city`	No
`jnid`	Yes	Job jnid to update
`name`	No
`tags`	No
`geo_lat`	No	GPS latitude
`geo_lon`	No	GPS longitude
`state_text`	No
`description`	No
`status_name`	No
`address_line1`	No
`custom_fields_json`	No	JSON string of custom fields, e.g. {"Lead Number":"L-001","Plus Code":"XXXX+XX"}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Update a job', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether it performs a partial update or full replacement, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or return behavior.

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 very concise with two sentences, no redundancy, and clearly front-loads the action. All words are useful.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on update semantics, error handling, and usage of most parameters, making it incomplete for an AI agent to reliably invoke.

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?

The description adds value for the custom_fields_json parameter, explaining its use for specific fields. However, schema coverage is only 33%, and the description does not clarify the remaining parameters (zip, city, name, etc.) beyond their names. The baseline 3 is appropriate as it partially compensates.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a job in JobNimbus'. It also specifies using custom_fields_json for specific fields, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from update vs create, but the parent tool name implies update.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., jn_create_job or jn_get_job). It only mentions using custom_fields_json for certain fields, but no context on prerequisites or alternatives.

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