@vitrion/zentria-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update-customer

Modify a customer’s name, email, or phone by providing the customer ID. Update the customer record directly in Zentria CRM.

Instructions

Update a customer (PUT /api/public/customers/{id}). Scope: customers:write.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update-customer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Customer id.
`name`	No
`email`	No
`phone`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the HTTP method and required scope, but it does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, whether destructive changes are reversible, or what side effects occur beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is appropriately short and front-loaded. The core operation is stated first, followed by the endpoint and scope. Every word adds useful information without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations, lack of output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It fails to explain which fields are updatable, how PUT semantics affect customers, or what the response will contain, leaving important gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description adds no meaning for name, email, or phone beyond what the bare schema shows. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, leaving their semantics and update behavior unclear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Update a customer') and includes the HTTP PUT endpoint, making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create-customer, get-customer, archive-customer, and list-customers.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create-customer is for new customers or that archive-customer handles removal, leaving the agent to infer conditions from sibling names. The scope note ('customers:write') is a permission requirement, not a usage condition.

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

Deploy Server