update_client_statusSet a client's account status to active, inactive, or fraud. Inactive/fraud clients cannot log in; fraud additionally blocks new orders.
Set a client's status to active, inactive or fraud. Wraps Clients.edit(client_id, {status}). Inactive/fraud clients cannot log in; fraud also blocks orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | New status | |
| client_id | Yes | Numeric client ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds key behavioral detail: inactive/fraud clients cannot log in)Skip and fraud additionally blocks orders. It also reveals the underlying API call (Clients.edit), giving the agent a useful mental model of the mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the enum values are named, the wrapper target is stated, and only meaningful behavioral consequences are included. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema, strong annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It covers the action, status options, effects of status changes, and the underlying endpoint without leaving critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the real-world meaning of each status enum value and clarifies how the parameters map to the underlying Clients.edit call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Set a client's status'), the resource (client), and the allowed values (active, inactive, fraud). The explicit 'Wraps Clients.edit(client_id, {status})' line also distinguishes this from read-only sibling tools like get_client and search_clients.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies exactly when to use the tool: whenever a client's status needs to be changed. The description does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but no sibling tool covers status updates, and the behavioral consequences ('cannot log in', 'blocks orders') provide clear and practical usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.