E-commerce MCP Server

Update Product

update_product

Update an existing product's attributes by providing its ID along with any optional fields to modify.

Instructions

Update an existing product by providing correct id(mandatory) as input along with with sku(optional), name(optional), description(optional but better to have), price(optional), and quantity(optional).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`sku`	No
`name`	No
`price`	No
`quantity`	No
`description`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`sku`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`price`	Yes
`quantity`	Yes
`created_at`	No
`updated_at`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the operation is an update (implying mutation) but does not mention side effects, required permissions, validation behavior, or partial update semantics. Also, it misleadingly marks description as 'optional but better to have' without explaining why better, which is vague.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence that is somewhat long and has repetition ('with with' typo). It front-loads the mandatory id and lists optional fields, but could be more concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the parameter count, schema coverage, and output schema, the description covers the basics but lacks critical behavioral context (e.g., what response to expect, validation rules, idempotency). For a mutation tool with 6 params and no annotations, more detail is expected.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters and states optionality, adding some value over the schema (e.g., description 'better to have'). However, it lacks details on format, constraints, or interplay between parameters.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing product and lists the fields that can be modified, with the id as mandatory. It distinguishes from sibling 'add_product' and 'delete_product' by focusing on update, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'add_product_smartly' or 'get_product_by_id'.

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?

It implies usage (update when you have an existing product id), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like add_product_smartly or get_product_by_id. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server