fiken-mcp

fiken_update_contact

Update an existing contact's information including name, email, address, and other details in Fiken.

Instructions

Updates an existing contact

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": {
      "contactId": "<contactId>"
    },
    "name": "fiken_update_contact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`email`	No
`groups`	No
`address`	No
`currency`	No
`customer`	No
`inactive`	No
`language`	No
`supplier`	No
`contactId`	Yes
`phoneNumber`	No
`bankAccountNumber`	No
`organizationNumber`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with 'Updates'. However, the description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic action, such as whether it replaces or merges fields, required permissions, or side effects.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is minimal (one sentence), but it is too short to convey necessary information. It does not earn its place as it fails to add value beyond the name.

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?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not describe return values, required fields, or any operational details.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 13 parameters, including the nested address object. The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Updates an existing contact' states the verb and resource, but it is generic and does not differentiate from sibling update tools like fiken_update_invoice or fiken_update_contact_person. It is clear but lacks specifics.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fiken_create_contact or fiken_get_contact. No prerequisites or context provided.

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

Deploy Server