sevdesk MCP Server

update_tag

Update a tag's name by providing its ID and the new name.

Instructions

Update an existing tag's name

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": {
      "tagId": "<tagId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	New name for the tag
`tagId`	Yes	The ID of the tag to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update', indicating a write operation, but does not describe idempotency, side effects, error handling, or confirmation of success. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded and immediately clear.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could be improved by mentioning that the tag must exist or what happens on failure.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds 'existing tag's name' which is already implied by the schema. It does not provide additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 'Update an existing tag's name' clearly specifies the verb (update) and the resource (an existing tag), and it differentiates from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, list_tags, and get_tag.

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?

The description implies when to use (when you want to rename a tag) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites like tag existence.

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