Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Client

update_client
Idempotent

Modify existing client records while enforcing duplicate checks; use deactivate/reactivate tools for activation fields and attest foreign identity when changing identity fields.

Instructions

Update client fields. Server-managed activation fields are rejected; use deactivate/reactivate tools. Identity changes (code, VAT, country, person type) pass the same identity and duplicate checks as create_client.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesClient ID
dataYesObject with fields to update.
allow_duplicateNoAllow a registry code another live client (or the company itself) already uses (default false).
foreign_identity_attestedNoOperator attestation for a FOREIGN legal entity's identity, required when changing its identity fields (see create_client).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.27.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / allow_duplicate
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Allow a registry code another live client (or the company itself) already uses (default false).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / foreign_identity_attested
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Operator attestation for a FOREIGN legal entity's identity, required when changing its identity fields (see create_client).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description adds value rather than carrying full burden. It discloses two concrete behavioral constraints: server-managed activation fields are rejected and identity changes are subject to the same identity/duplicate checks as create_client. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed only by caveats that materially affect invocation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant restatement of parameter names or annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a four-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers validation caveats and alternative tools, while the idempotence and destructive profile is supplied by annotations. The main omissions, such as return shape or exact field lists, are minor and partially covered by schema detail, so it is complete enough to guide invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and every parameter already has an inline description. The tool description nonetheless adds meaning by naming the identity fields (code, VAT, country, person type) that trigger validation and by linking duplicate/identity behavior to create_client, which goes beyond the generic 'fields to update' schema text.

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?

The description opens with a clear verb-object statement ('Update client fields') and then distinguishes the tool from activation and creation tools: server-managed activation fields are rejected and identity changes follow create_client validation. This positions the tool precisely among update_client, deactivate_client, reactivate_client, and create_client.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says activation fields should not be updated here and routes those needs to deactivate/reactivate tools. It also draws a behavioral comparison to create_client for identity changes, giving an agent a clear decision anchor for validation-sensitive updates. It does not spell out generic create/delete distinctions, but those are clear from naming and field context.

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