Gripp MCP

gripp_update

Update a Gripp entity by providing entity name, ID, and field values. Confirmation is required to apply the changes.

Instructions

Update a Gripp entity by ID. Requires confirm=true because this writes to Gripp.

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "fields": "<fields>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "gripp_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Database ID of the entity to update.
`entity`	Yes	Gripp entity name, for example company, contact, invoice, task, or tag.
`fields`	Yes	Field values to update. Check gripp_describe_entity first.
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to update data in Gripp.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions writing to Gripp and the confirm requirement, but does not discuss side effects, reversibility, permissions, or return behavior. Adequate 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every part earns its place. No unnecessary words or structure.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at return values, but it does not. It covers the essential prerequisite and action, but leaves out expected output. Adequate for a simple update tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides; it only repeats the confirm requirement. No extra semantic value added.

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 states 'Update a Gripp entity by ID,' which clearly specifies the action (update) and the resource (Gripp entity by ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like create or delete.

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 notes that 'Requires confirm=true because this writes to Gripp,' providing a prerequisite and context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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

Deploy Server