Lanten MCP Server

update_tenant

Modify a tenant's first name, last name, email, phone number, or notes by providing the tenant ID and the fields to update.

Instructions

Update an existing tenant. Only supplied fields are changed.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_tenant"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Tenant UUID
`firstName`	No	Updated first name
`lastName`	No	Updated last name
`email`	No	Updated email (null to clear)
`phoneNumber`	No	Updated phone number (null to clear)
`notes`	No	Updated notes (null to clear)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Only supplied fields are changed'), which is important. However, it does not mention authorization needs, error handling, or what happens if the tenant doesn't exist. Basic behavioral context is present but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second clarifies partial update behavior.

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 simple update tool with 6 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and partial update behavior. It lacks details on error responses, idempotency, or permissions, but these are not critical for a straightforward update. Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates that only supplied fields are changed. 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?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing tenant' with the verb 'Update' and the resource 'tenant', and adds the key behavior 'Only supplied fields are changed'. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like create_tenant or delete_tenant.

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?

The description implies usage when you need to update a tenant, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools is clear, and the description is sufficient for a simple update operation.

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

Deploy Server