kintone MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Statuses

kintone-update-statuses

Update the status of up to 100 kintone app records at once using defined process actions. Requires process management enabled; specify record IDs and actions.

Instructions

Update status of multiple records in a kintone app. Requires process management feature to be enabled. Maximum 100 records can be updated at once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app`	Yes	The ID of the app (numeric value as string)
`records`	Yes	Array of records to update status (min 1, max 100). Each record must have both id (which record to update) and action (the action to execute), and may have assignee and revision.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`records`	Yes	Array of updated record information

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.11.0Oct 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / records / description

Previous value: -"Array of records to update status (min 1, max 100). Each record contains id, action, and optionally assignee and revision."New value: +"Array of records to update status (min 1, max 100). Each record must have both id (which record to update) and action (the action to execute), and may have assignee and revision."

changedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / action / description

Previous value: -"Action name to execute. Must be specified in the user's display language if multiple languages are configured. If multiple actions with the same name exist for the current status, an error will occur."New value: +"Required. Action name to execute. Must be specified in the user's display language if multiple languages are configured. If multiple actions with the same name exist for the current status, an error will occur."

changedInput schema / properties / records / items / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Record ID (numeric value as string)"New value: +"Required. Record ID (numeric value as string)"

removedInput schema / properties / records / items / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "id",
-  "action"
-]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.9.3Aug 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

removedInput schema / properties / records / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv1.4.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 100-record batch cap and the process-management prerequisite, which is useful, but says nothing about what a status update triggers (assignee resolution, action-based transitions), permission requirements, or partial-failure behavior.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded ahead of the constraint and the cap. No filler, though the sentences are terse enough that the prerequisites could be integrated more usefully.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for an unannotated mutation tool the description should at least signal that updates are workflow-driven and may fail on invalid action names or revisions – the schema hints at this but the description doesn't tie it together.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents app, id, action, assignee, and revision in detail. The description only restates the 100-record maximum, adding no meaning beyond the schema's maxItems and per-field notes.

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 status of multiple records in a kintone app'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling kintone-update-records that edits field values. It does not explicitly name that sibling or contrast the two, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives one important precondition (the process management feature must be enabled), which is real usage guidance. But it never says when to use this instead of kintone-update-records, or whether status changes must follow a defined workflow action.

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