tie-mcp-server

update_deviance

Update an ad-object-deviance-history record to set a date-time for ignoring the deviance.

Instructions

Update ad-object-deviance-history instance.

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": {
      "infrastructureId": "<infrastructureId>",
      "directoryId": "<directoryId>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "update_deviance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Path parameter: id
`body`	Yes	Validates the PATCH /ad-object-deviance-history/:id request
`directoryId`	Yes	Path parameter: directoryId
`infrastructureId`	Yes	Path parameter: infrastructureId

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It merely states 'Update', implying a mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive potential, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. This lack of detail leaves the agent underinformed.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, which is positive. However, for a tool with 4 required parameters and a nested object, it may be underspecified, earning a middle score.

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?

Given the complexity (4 params, nested body with nullable field) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify that only the 'ignoreUntil' field can be updated, and omits return value or effect details, requiring the agent to infer too much.

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%, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Path parameter: id') with no additional meaning. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 verb 'Update' and the specific resource 'ad-object-deviance-history instance'. It is specific but lacks differentiation from sibling update tools like 'update_deviances_by_ad_object' or 'update_directory', which could confuse an AI agent about which to use.

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?

No guidelines provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling update_* tools, an agent would have no context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios.

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

Deploy Server