Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nubiia-dev

MCP Holded

by nubiia-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_payment

Update an existing Holded payment with partial changes by re-reading the current record and merging your edits, so omitted fields like contactId or date are not blanked.

Instructions

Update an existing payment (Holded API v2). IMPORTANT: Holded's PUT /payments/{id} REPLACES the record rather than merging, so any field omitted from the body is blanked. To prevent that, this tool first re-reads the current payment and merges your changes over it, preserving fields you did not pass (contactId, bankId, date, ...).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoPayment date as a Unix timestamp (seconds)
daysNoDays until due
nameNoPayment method name
amountNoPayment amount
bankIdNoBank account id to link the payment to
contactIdNoContact id associated with the payment
paymentIdYesPayment ID to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / amount
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Payment amount",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / bankId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bank account id to link the payment to",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / contactId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Contact id associated with the payment",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / date
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Payment date as a Unix timestamp (seconds)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observedv1.6.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that the underlying PUT replaces the record, that omitted fields would otherwise be blanked, and that the tool mitigates this with a read-then-merge. What is missing is failure behavior — what happens if paymentId does not exist, whether the merge is subject to races, or what the call returns.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first identifies the operation, the second front-loads the critical replace caveat with a bolded IMPORTANT marker and then explains the mitigation. No filler or restated title.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the single largest risk (silent field blanking) that an agent could not infer from the schema. It is nearly complete; only response shape and error semantics are unaddressed, and those are lower-stakes for a merge-style update.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that every non-required parameter is genuinely optional and that omitting one preserves the existing value, naming contactId, bankId, and date as examples — a semantic guarantee the schema itself cannot express.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Update an existing payment") and anchors it to Holded API v2, which makes it clearly distinct from create_payment, get_payment, and delete_payment by name. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative in cases where creation or payment-via-document is intended, so not a full 5.

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 conveys important usage context: omitting fields is fine because the tool merges, so partial updates are the intended mode. However, it never states when to reach for this over siblings like pay_document or create_payment, nor does it list any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. the payment must already exist and be owned by the caller).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools