mcploy

Update category

loyverse_update_category

Update a Loyverse category by sending all required fields via POST with the category ID. Include the full set of fields; partial updates are rejected. Error messages from the API are returned verbatim.

Instructions

Update an existing category (POST /categories with "id" set — Loyverse uses the same create endpoint for updates when "id" is present in the body). This is not a partial patch: include all required fields for this resource, not just the ones changing, or Loyverse will reject the request. Field names follow the Loyverse API v1.0 (developer.loyverse.com/docs). If a call fails with a 400, the error message from Loyverse is returned verbatim — adjust the fields and retry.

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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "loyverse_update_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The category id.
`body`	Yes	Full set of fields for the category (required fields included, not just the ones changing).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses non-obvious behavior: same endpoint as create, not a partial patch, verbatim error messages. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Single paragraph but dense and informative without redundancy. Could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points), but still concise.

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?

Covers request requirements and error handling well. Lacks description of success response, but for a mutation tool this is acceptable. Overall fairly complete.

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 100%, and description adds crucial context: id must be set, body must include all required fields. This goes beyond schema basics.

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?

Clearly states it updates an existing category using a POST endpoint with id. Distinguishes from create (same endpoint but id present) and from other update tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use (updating an existing category), warns against partial patches, and instructs to include all required fields. Also provides error handling guidance.

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

Deploy Server