Skip to main content
Glama
xuanji86

FastBound MCP

by xuanji86
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update acquisition

update_acquisition
Idempotent

Update a pending acquisition's header fields (type, date, note, PO/invoice/tracking, externalId) while keeping unspecified values unchanged. Dry-run by default; set confirm:true to apply changes.

Instructions

Edit header fields (type, date, note, PO/invoice/tracking, externalId) on a PENDING acquisition. Read-merge-write so unspecified fields keep their current values. Dry-run by default; pass confirm:true. Write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesGUID of the pending acquisition.
dateNo
noteNo
typeNoAcquisition type (see list_smartlists AcquireType).
accountNoWhich configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.
confirmNoSet true to actually execute. Omit or false returns a DRY RUN preview that sends nothing.
auditUserNoEmail recorded as X-AuditUser for the ATF audit trail. Overrides FASTBOUND_AUDIT_USER for this call. Must be an active user on the account.
externalIdNo
invoiceNumberNo
purchaseOrderNumberNo
shipmentTrackingNumberNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / account
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which configured FastBound account to use for this one call — an alias or account number (see list_accounts). Omit to use the active account.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses read-merge-write semantics (unspecified fields retain values), a dry-run default with confirm:true required to execute, and that this is a write operation. These are the key behavioral traits needed to invoke it safely.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: action and object first, merge behavior second, dry-run/confirmation third. The final 'Write' is a useful explicit flag rather than redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a highly parameterized tool with no output schema, the description covers target state, merge behavior, and execution control well. It does not describe the return/dry-run preview shape or edge cases like providing no editable fields, but those are minor compared to what is captured.

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?

Description adds domain meaning by grouping fields as header fields and explaining confirm's role, and schema covers confirm/account/auditUser. However, schema coverage is only 45% and several parameters (date, note, invoiceNumber, shipmentTrackingNumber) have no explanation in either the description or schema.

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 names a specific action ('Edit header fields' on a PENDING acquisition) and enumerates the affected fields, making it easy to distinguish from update_acquisition_item and commit_acquisition. The read-merge-write note further clarifies what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly scopes the tool to PENDING acquisitions, which tells an agent when this is appropriate and implicitly rules out committed/deleted acquisitions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use it, but the context is strong.

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