Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

update_object

Update an existing object's attributes by providing only changed fields. Specify object type, UUID, and JSON with modified requisites.

Instructions

Обновить реквизиты существующего объекта. Передавай только изменяемые поля.

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": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>",
      "guid": "<guid>",
      "attributes": "<attributes>"
    },
    "name": "update_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guidYesUUID объекта
full_nameYesТип объекта, например: Справочник.Номенклатура
attributesYesJSON-объект с изменяемыми реквизитами

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions mutation ('update') but does not detail prerequisites, error handling, side effects, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and usage instruction. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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?

Description is too brief for an update operation with nested objects. Lacks information on return value, idempotency, error behavior, or permissions. Without annotations or output schema, it feels incomplete.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds no new information beyond the schema, repeating the 'only changed fields' hint for attributes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool updates existing object's requisites and instructs to pass only changed fields. Name 'update_object' is explicit and differentiates from siblings like create_object or delete_object.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a helpful tip ('pass only changed fields') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_attribute or create_object. No exclusions or comparisons given.

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