casemgr-mcp

clients-update

clients-update

Update an existing client's name, phone, currency, default rate, or contact/billing information by specifying the client ID.

Instructions

Updates a client

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": {
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "clients-update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`client_id`	Yes	Client ID (@rid format)
`contact_info`	No	Contact/billing info as JSON object with name, phone, line1, line2, line3 fields. Phone is used for SMS routing.
`currency`	No	Currency code
`default_rate`	No	Default hourly billing rate
`name`	No	New client name
`phone`	No	Phone number in E.164 format (e.g., +15551234567)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (update) but does not mention idempotency, partial vs full replacement, required permissions, side effects, or return value. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. While it could be slightly more informative, it efficiently states the purpose without wasted words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon update, the response format, or error conditions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters (e.g., contact_info structure, phone format). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for strong schema coverage.

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?

The description 'Updates a client' clearly indicates the verb and resource, which is sufficient to distinguish from create/delete siblings. However, it lacks specificity about which fields can be updated, but it's not a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clients-create or clients-update (if there were multiple update variants). There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, or when not to use.

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

Deploy Server