Skip to main content
Glama
gray-wilbee

fub-mcp

by gray-wilbee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_custom_field

Modify an existing custom field's label, dropdown choices, visibility, recurrence, or sort order in Follow Up Boss.

Instructions

Update a custom field. (PUT /customFields/{id})

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
labelNoThe user-friendly name of the custom field (e.g., "Anniversary").
choicesNoArray of options related to a custom field of type `dropdown`.
extraBodyNoExtra raw JSON body fields not explicitly listed above — e.g. custom.* fields when creating/updating people or deals. Keys and values are sent as-is.
extraQueryNoExtra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is.
hideIfEmptyNoWhen viewing a person, we will hide this field if it is empty.
isRecurringNoSets whether a date field occurs every year (e.g., birthdays, anniversaries, etc.). (Note: This is only set and returned for `date` custom fields.)
orderWeightNoA weighted integer for the field to assign values for custom sorting.
dropdownChoiceMapNoAn optional mapping that points previous dropdown choices (keys) to their new positions (values). This is used to track when options get moved or renamed. If items are missing from the keys, they will be removed. If the mapping is not supplied, then this endpoint will try to determine if items have been moved or renamed on its own.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update a custom field'—a near-tautology. It does not reveal whether the update is partial or full, how type-specific flags behave, what happens to existing values, or whether any permissions are required.

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?

The description is one sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for stating the core purpose, though it sacrifices valuable context for brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a 9-parameter, nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, update behavior, type-specific constraints, or how it relates to sibling tools. The schema helps with parameters, but the tool-level context is missing.

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 89%, so the individual parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the high coverage makes the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a custom field') and includes the HTTP method/path, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like create_custom_field or update_deal_custom_field, relying entirely on the name for distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_custom_field, update_deal_custom_field, or the list/get variants. There is no mention of prerequisites, partial-update semantics, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools