AFAS MCP Server

Validate an UpdateConnector payload

afas_validate_payload

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate an AFAS UpdateConnector payload against its connector schema before sending, showing the exact request body and flagging missing mandatory fields for inserts.

Instructions

Check an UpdateConnector payload against the connector schema without sending it, and show the exact body.

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": {
      "connector_id": "<connector_id>",
      "element": "<element>"
    },
    "name": "afas_validate_payload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`element`	Yes	The Element payload: {"Fields": {...}, "Objects": {...}} plus "@KeyField": value entries for updates. A list of such objects sends several records at once.
`operation`	No	insert requires all mandatory fields; update does not.	insert
`connector_id`	Yes	UpdateConnector id as listed by afas_list_connectors, e.g. KnSubject.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by confirming the payload is never sent to AFAS and that the exact body is returned, which tells the agent this is a safe dry-run.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the no-side-effect guarantee front-loaded. There is no filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter coverage, and rich annotations, the description only needs to establish purpose and side-effect behavior, which it does. It does not explain how validation failures are surfaced, but the output schema likely covers that.

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 schema documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, including the operation enum distinction between insert and update and the @KeyField convention. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: check an UpdateConnector payload against the connector schema. The phrase 'without sending it' separates it from an actual write operation, though it doesn't name any sibling tool such as afas_describe_update_connector, which an agent might otherwise confuse with a validation step.

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 words 'without sending it' imply the pre-flight use case: verify before performing a real update. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the workflow position from context.

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

Deploy Server