mcploy

Update item

loyverse_update_item

Update an existing item in Loyverse by providing the complete set of required fields—not just the changes—to prevent API rejection.

Instructions

Update an existing item (POST /items 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_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The item id.
`body`	Yes	Full set of fields for the item (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?

With no annotations, description fully covers behavior: full replacement (not partial), same endpoint as create, verbatim error messages. Adds beyond schema.

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?

Three sentences covering action, caution, and error handling. No redundancy, all essential.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains behavior, required fields, and error recovery. Points to external docs for field names, which is reasonable.

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%, but description adds that 'body' must include all required fields, not just changed ones, which clarifies semantics beyond schema description.

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 clearly states it updates an existing item using POST /items, distinct from create_item (which doesn't require an id). It's specific with verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly warns that it's not a partial patch and requires all required fields. Mentions error handling with 400. Could explicitly contrast with create_item but context implies usage.

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

Deploy Server