Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Client

update_client
Idempotent

Modify existing client fields in e-arveldaja, applying identity and duplicate checks for changes; activation status must be handled with deactivate or reactivate tools.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. 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"
+}
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: activation-field writes are rejected and identity changes (code, VAT, country, person type) trigger the same identity/duplicate validation as create_client, so an agent knows those updates can fail on validation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the routing constraint. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutation tool with an idempotent annotation and no output schema, the description covers what is rejected, which alternative to use, and that identity edits share create_client's validation. Return values are not needed (no output schema). Minor gap: it does not describe what data accepts or partial-vs-full update semantics.

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 100%, so all four parameters (id, data, allow_duplicate, foreign_identity_attested) are already documented in the schema. The description references duplicate checks and identity changes, loosely echoing allow_duplicate and foreign_identity_attested, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Update client fields') and immediately scope-limits it by naming what it will not do (activation fields) and which siblings handle that (deactivate/reactivate). An agent can distinguish it from deactivate_client/reactivate_client without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: server-managed activation fields are rejected, so route those to deactivate/reactivate tools. Also signals that identity changes behave like create_client. No exclusions beyond that, but the key routing decision is covered.

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