Skip to main content
Glama
stables-money

Stables MCP Server

Official
by stables-money
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_customer

Modify existing customer records—contact details, identity data, entitlements, and verification info—by supplying the customer ID and changed values.

Instructions

Update customer details, entitlements, or verification information

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dobNoUpdated date of birth (YYYY-MM-DD)
emailNoUpdated email address
phoneNoUpdated phone number
lastNameNoUpdated last name
firstNameNoUpdated first name
customerIdYesThe customer ID to update
middleNameNoUpdated middle name
companyNameNoUpdated company name (for businesses)
nationalityNoUpdated nationality (two-letter country code)
entitlementsNoUpdated entitlements

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.4.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / entitlements / items / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "base_payout",
-  "virtual_account"
-]New value: +[
+  "base_payout",
+  "virtual_account",
+  "eur_virtual_account",
+  "gbp_virtual_account",
+  "usd_virtual_account",
+  "aed_local"
+]
  2. First observedv1.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether updates are partial or full-replacement (do omitted fields get cleared?), whether entitlements changes trigger separate approval flows, what permissions are required, or that the operation is destructive to existing values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is terse but not padded, though the brevity trades away the behavioral detail a 10-parameter mutation tool warrants.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the most decision-relevant facts: partial vs. full update semantics, permission requirements, and how it relates to the entitlement-request siblings. The schema covers field names but not update behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters adequately, and the description adds only a loose grouping of them. It contributes no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ("Update customer") and scopes it to three areas: details, entitlements, and verification information. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as update_customer_metadata or request_entitlements, and "verification information" has no corresponding parameter in the schema, which slightly muddies the claimed scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings like update_customer_metadata, request_entitlements, and submit_entitlement_requirements present, an agent has no basis in the description for choosing this tool over them.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools