Skip to main content
Glama
gray-wilbee

fub-mcp

by gray-wilbee
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_deal

Update an existing deal's details, including name, price, stage, assigned users, dates, and custom fields via the Follow Up Boss API.

Instructions

Update a deal. (PUT /deals/{id})

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
nameNoName of the deal.
priceNoThe price associated with this deal.
stageIdNoThe stage that this deal should be assigned to.
userIdsNoA list of user ids that should be part of this deal.
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.
peopleIdsNoA list of person ids that should be part of this deal.
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.
descriptionNoDescription of the deal.
teamComissionNoCommission value for a team split.
agentCommisionNoCommission value for an agent split.
possessionDateNoPossession Date for this deal.
commissionValueNoCommission value to assign to this deal.
dueDiligenceDateNoDue Diligence Date for this deal.
projectedCloseDateNoProjected close date of this deal.
earnestMoneyDueDateNoEarnest Money Due Date for this deal.
finalWalkThroughDateNoFinal Walk Through Date for this deal.
mutualAcceptanceDateNoMutual Acceptance Date for this deal.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the mutation and HTTP method, omitting important behavior such as partial vs full replacement, required fields, auth needs, side effects, or response shape.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler. It is concise, though the wording largely restates the tool name, and the endpoint is the only added structural detail.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description is far from complete. It does not explain update semantics, whether all fields are patchable, or what the agent can expect after the call, leaving operational gaps.

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 94%, so the schema already documents nearly all 18 parameters, including nested objects like extraBody and extraQuery. The description contributes no parameter-specific meaning, but the high schema coverage keeps this at the baseline.

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 (Update) and resource (a deal), and the HTTP endpoint PUT /deals/{id} confirms the operation. This is enough to tell it apart from create_deal, get_deal, and list_deals by action, but it does not explicitly call out sibling differences.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_deal, get_deal, or update_deal_custom_field. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or what distinguishes updating a deal from related operations.

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