MCP_Salesforce

update_account

Update a Salesforce account's fields—name, phone, website, industry, and description—by specifying the account ID and the new values.

Instructions

Update a Salesforce account with new information

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>",
      "updates": "<updates>"
    },
    "name": "update_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`updates`	Yes	Fields to update on the account
`accountId`	Yes	The Salesforce Account ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the mutation action without disclosing whether updates are partial or full replaces, any permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it is also under-specified, providing only the most basic action without useful context, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks operational context about the update semantics, return values, or any conditions for successful invocation. The schema covers parameter names but not the behavioral context needed for correct usage.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (accountId and updates), and the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description does not degrade or enhance this.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Salesforce account'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like update_contact or update_opportunity. It explicitly focuses on accounts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_account or search_accounts. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the account must exist) or when updating is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server